iSixSigma

Six Sigma in 5 yrs

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Six Sigma in 5 yrs

Viewing 44 posts - 1 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48999

    Deanb
    Participant

    Where do you think the six sigma movement will be 5yrs from now, and why?

    0
    #166616

    Brandon
    Participant

    I believe the use of the “tools” of SS will be with us for many years….they work. They work for the issues they address. Do they solve all business issues? Of course not.
    What I believe has changed already in the SS world is that the SS training/consulting industry is nearly dead. There are a few pockets around and, I suppose, there are still opportunties outside the US. However, the days of million dollar license fees and $800K, $1 mil, $3 mil deployments are gone.
    SS training is now in multiple school offerings and will find its resting place in the “self-improvement” arena.
    Now if ASQ steps up to the certification opportunity AND requires on-going education, as most certifying entities do, then the road warriors of yesteryear may still be able to feed themselves. Otherwise I hope they invested well….their prior comp level is history.

    0
    #166618

    Fake Harry Alert
    Participant

    I  believe  a  new  movement will  come  out,mainly  an  integration of  SS,TQM,Kaizen,Lean,etc.
    You  name  it  as  you  wish  ,but  it shold  be a  new  dynamic  concept focusing  on overall process  improvement.
    The  business of belt  will fade.  

    0
    #166619

    Brandon
    Participant

    FHA – you may be correct but I don’t see it igniting an industry like SS did the lucrative training/consulting industry. Process improvement will be with us as long as we accomplish things through processes. However, it will pale in comparison to the other challenges facing businesses. Innovation is occurring at lightning speed. Markets with ease of entry open the doors for those creating and delivering what consumers want. Th eWorld is changing distribution channels – brick & mortar is history. We are now serving worldwide, mass markets vs. neighborhood markets.
    And, a whole bunch of other things that are well beyond my thinking at present.
    So, SS et al have their place but they are just another skill set. Won’t be driving the world as it has (or has pretended to) for the last 15 or so years.
    As others have said – my 2 cents.

    0
    #166620

    wgmiller
    Member

    Here’s a pertinant observation:
    A few years ago, when I would go to my local Barnes and Noble bookstore, they would have many books on Six Sigma.  I went there today, and there were no books on Six Sigma.
    W. G. Miller
     

    0
    #166622

    Brandon
    Participant

    Wow, WG….sold out huh? Man there are in demand.

    0
    #166623

    Deanb
    Participant

    Brandon, Fake Harry, WG,Thanks for your crystal ball insights. I expect certain trends over the last 5yrs to continue including:
    -Integration of BBs/GBs back into the organization’s functional areas as a competency rather than a profession.
    -A fusion of programs, theories and approaches tailored to each company’s unique situation, but no big new program for a while.
    -A growing preoccupation with looming meta issues that will affect most firms including: massive early retirements of boomers (and their knowledge), rising energy and health care costs, weakness/strength of the dollar, potential for recession or inflation, etc.My sense is companies are increasingly seeking stability more than revolutionary improvement, as they prepare for the wave of externality instability looming ahead. Perhaps in a few years, after these issues have faded, then we might see another CI wave to train millions of newbees. Already, most of the people I see at conferences or in courses are very new to CI, and are very green. I expect this segment to start growing exponentially, in time.

    0
    #166624

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Since it seems we’ve lost a portion of today’s postings (what the ehck is up with the Forum, anyway?), I am reposting my adds to the thread (yeah, I saved them).

    Where will Six Sigma be in Five Years?
     
    Who can say what will be in five years?  Any answer will be biased by our own individual hopes and fears, our predominant negative or positive dispositions.  I think it is fitting and right that, near the end of the old year and the beginning of the new, that we do look forward.  So, not having a crystal ball, my answer reflects my hopes for the future, not only for Six Sigma, but more importantly, for the business world we live and work in.
     
    First, my hope is that we can get to a more holistic approach.  That the fad of the day, month, year, decade will be replaced by a long term view of business.  One where management understands their roles aren’t to make mandates and search for the next quick fix, but one wherein they understand they are leaders whose job is to be the “servants” of their people.  Where they truly understand the business they’re in, the people they work with, and provide them with what they need – then get out of their way and let them do their excellent work.  What I envision is a collaboration between management and labor, each fulfilling their critical role in the success of the business.
     
    My hope for continual improvement is that it will become just that: management and labor working together to continually improve their systems and processes.  That management will work diligently to remove fear from the organization.  Mistakes will be looked upon as an opportunity to learn and improve, and when made, will be viewed for their positive intent, rather than as something done on purpose and let the hangings begin.
     
    Lastly, my hope for the future is that we can begin to love and cherish our co-workers.  That leadership takes the view, as Peter Drucker said, of doing the right things, rather than just doing things right,  And, in the end, the theories of those like Dr. Deming, Warren Bennis, Peter Drucker (the list goes on) will become part of our corporate DNA.
     
    Some may call it “the impossible dream.”  I believe it can happen.  With all of the intelligent and capable people, miracles can, and do, happen every day.  Sometimes, we just get too close to the problems to see things in a positive light and the positive effects we have: the old curmudgeon who becomes an advocate, or the worker who, once dreading the daily routine of getting ready for work, now looks forward to being there and participating in the ongoing improvement of their jobs and the company.  To get there, we must first create a vision for the future. 
    Creating the vision is easy – getting there is not.  We must first make the vision of the future so compelling that it literally pains us to remain in the comfort zones of today.  The perceived pains of change will miraculously drift away and we will take the steps necessary to make the vision a reality. 
    Each of us can and should take up the mantle and forge forward, always learning, adapting, applying and improving, both in our professional and personal lives.  It is a continual process, one which I intend to follow until the day I leave this world. 
    I often think that, as improvement professionals, we get too caught up in our own juices:  the nature of improvement is to find and resolve issues, problems, concerns – call them what you will – but they do tend to be negative.  And like the beat cop who started their careers in the hope of helping people and over time becomes jaded through years of seeing the worst in people, we too, become jaded, and sometimes cynical.  We must constantly be on guard and maintain our positive dispositions, pull ourselves back up and realize that we do make a difference – even if it’s just one person, one process, one little thing at a time.  A penny is just one cent, but if you put enough of them together, it becomes something substantial.  We have the power and the talent to create something substantial.  We can make the vision of the future a reality.
    The next question in making my vision a reality becomes, how do we get there?  Ah, now that’s the mega-million dollar question!
     
    If management takes up the challenge and has created a well articulated and compelling vision, they must take the steps that transforms it into reality.  They must learn.  As Deming said, knowledge only comes in from the outside, and only by invitation.  Management must blow open the doors to learning and knowledge, both for themselves and for their people. 
     
    As I mentioned before, they must achieve that often elusive thing that Deming called “profound knowledge.”  And frankly, many times, it really isn’t all that profound.  But their view must shift from the day-to-day firefights to a focus on the long-term horizons.  They must achieve a deep understanding of the business they’re in, determine where they want and need to be, and assess where their current capabilities lie vis-a-vis what they need, given their profound understanding of where they need and want to be.  Properly followed, the balanced scorecard can aid in this effort: doing SWOT analysis, strategy maps, value stream analysis, and the collaborative give and take (catchball) within the organization that baseline the current state and sets the goals and objectives that work towards achieving the future state.
     
    Part of the profound knowledge is their understanding of the various tools and methods that they have available to them.  TRIZ, six sigma, lean, critical thinking (insert your favorite tools and methods) should all be a part of it.  But, they are not enough.  The art of management becomes one of coupling their profound knowledge of the business with the tools and methods, as required, to move them forward in achieving their vision and long-term strategies.  They need to tie their tactics to their strategies and understand how what they do today, helps to accomplish their stated objectives at the strategic level, ever moving forward to achieve the vision   And, like the general who understands that plans and tactics are only good until the first shot is fired in combat, we need to maintain our vision for the future, keep our eyes on the target, but be ready to do the dance and change our plans and tactics when the need arises.  The one thing that doesn’t change is the vision.
     
    All said and done, this requires a major shift in how most managers view their jobs, their business and their people.  They need to understand that the change takes place within themselves, first.  Taking a one day Six Sigma Champion or Lean Leadership course is only the beginning.  They need to understand the tools and methods just as well, if not better than, the people they task to apply them within the organization at the systems and processes level.  They need to have their own skin in the game, and not just delegate it to the chosen few. 
     
    Skip Lafauve, the first President of Saturn Motors, understood this very well and is a model for what I am talking about.  He was so well educated in the theories, tools and methods that he would walk into a classroom and take it over from the instructor, teaching his employees, coaching and mentoring them along the way.  One thing that Skip said at the 1992 TQM Seminar for Aerospace and Defense really stuck with me, and he was spot-on:  as leaders, we have thousands of opportunities in a day to do the right thing – all it takes is one slip and the whole thing can come crashing down around us. 
     
    The example he gave was one of a door assembly. A worker pulled the cord and stopped the line.  Management came running to the line to see what had happened.  The worker explained that there was a small indentation in the door where a clamp was used to pick it up and install the door in the vehicle.  It was one of those things where you had to have the door at just the right angle and lighting to see it.  Look as he might, Skip couldn’t see it.  Now, many managers would have said, “I don’t see it – start the line up and ship it.”  But Skip asked, “What’s the solution – what are we doing to fix it?”  The worker said it was taken care of, the clamping force of the tool was just a bit too much and they would have it solved in a few minutes.  “Good job – do you need anything from me?” was Skip’s response.  Had he said “Ship it,” all the talk – all the hard work that had been done to make sure they had great people and a quality product – would have been washed away. 
     
    People hear what we say, but they watch what we do to see what we really mean.  We are tested every day.
     
    Yes, we have thousands of opportunities every day to do the right thing, to make a real difference, to move our people and the business forward to achieve our vision and strategies.  But it all begins with the sometimes elusive thing called profound knowledge.  And it starts with leadership.

    0
    #166636

    SiggySig
    Member

    Just based on the banner ads on this site and others, the emphasis is on Lean, DFSS, and Triz, to name a few. I imagine the training companies will find something new to package up this same batch of tools and foist on executive leadership grasping at straws to survive as a company.Take the Juran Institute as an example – they’ve adjusted their focus over the years to offer what’s hot.IMHO, transactional environments are still highly underdeveloped in terms of process thinking, variation control, and continuous improvement. By transactional, I really mean something more complex than call centers or claim processing organizations. Health care is also an industry that desperately needs Six Sigma. Given that I spend most of my time as a BB coaching management on how to be more effective, I don’t see that need going away. I would also like to see ASQ step it up and develop an MBB certification. I have been in general completely underwhelmed by most of the MBBs I have encountered, to the point that it is not an attractive next step for me career-wise.

    0
    #166644

    Deanb
    Participant

    Brandon,I concur totally. I noticed the big consultant deployments actually started fading 3 or so yrs ago as most of my consulting buddies were shifting to LEAN to eat.When I presented as ASQ’s Six Sigma conferences in 03 and 06, I asked then why the BB Certification did not require continuing recert-RUs. There was no plan to add these, even then. I wonder if this is why the CQE has started growing again, even in companies doing six-sigma. Are BBs adding CQE to get a more professionally recognized credential for the long term? If so, this may be another sign of six-sigma reintegrating into classical quality.

    0
    #166645

    Deanb
    Participant

    Fake,I think you are right on all 3 insights. For the last 2 or 3 years at conferences I have noticed a session titled “Fusion Quality” which promotes this very integration. Typically this has been one of the most heavily attended sessions. Must be what attendees consider relevant.

    0
    #166646

    Deanb
    Participant

    Shooter,Excellent insights. The art of leadership may indeed be the missing link, and no CI initiative can compensate for this if it is missing.Thanks,Dean

    0
    #166648

    Deanb
    Participant

    Siggy,I agree that transactional processes are under-developed. The problem SS has here often centers around oversimplifying the economic nature of the transaction. Depending on this nature, variation could have different economic meanings. Most transactional processes have both good and bad variation. Not all variation could or should be exterminated. Transactions need economic robustness so the transaction can be effectively executed “anyway.” This is especially true in marketing where getting good transactions “anyway” is often the real objective. Too often I find SS reduces robustness by forcing the notion of “one best way.”

    0
    #166650

    Brandon
    Participant

    Dean & All, at the ISSSP conf last May, I believe, Roxanne O’Brasky, Pres of ISSSP, was trying to find new life by creating a hub for Innovation. Obviously with the consumer market moving so quickly innovation will be key to any firm’s success. During a robust discussion on the topic she asked if those in attendence would participate in creating that idea sharing community if ISSSP facilitated it with a dedicated forum. She directed such a question to Don Linnseman, of Dupont fame. Don smiled and slowly said….”No. Not something we care to share.”
    So I see corp survival dependent significantly on their ability to stay up with or ahead of rapidly (far more rapidly than we’ve ever experienced before) changing consumer demand and alternative distribution channel availability. So there may be a market for teaching Innovation techniques – but it ain’t gonna get a lot of community sharing support.

    0
    #166656

    Deanb
    Participant

    Brandon,I can understand all your points. How market leaders innovate and out-flank market rivals is sensitive info. The point for SS’s participation in this may not sit in the flanking actions as much as supporting the chaos that results.Changing or shifting market demand naturally creates new winners, losers, and objectives. This tends to destabilize all players’ processes in some way. The ability to acquire “competitive process quality” quickly is key (not necessarily achieving perfection quality). In SS, this means faster projects with uglier data and more teamwork (and fewer highly technical solutions) where market success is the barometer (not profits). Profits or savings depend on too many externalities here to be a fair measures. We are talking about a “Rapid CI” approach using a much broader basket of tools.

    0
    #166657

    Fake Harry Alert
    Participant

    Deanb
    Thank You.
    All  best  wishes  for 2008

    0
    #166672

    Deanb
    Participant

    Brandon,I have seen a lot of talk about the need for innovation in SS circles, however those companies who actually do it well tend to be heavily invested in advanced marketing research, and are organizationally very market oriented from top to bottom.Innovation first requires a detailed purpose, or rationale, and this needs to be formulated with care (just as all SS projects do). For example, there are many kinds of consumer demand changes. It can be a change along the existing function-such as seen when markets mature and segment, and there can be complete demand shifts creating demand for new products etc. It is imperative that this demand be properly characterized before innovation is facilitated.This is one of the objectives of marketing research, which goes well beyond prevailing VOC capabilities IMHO. Show me a company that innovates well (such as 3M) and I will show you highly capable marketing and market research oriented company.Years ago a Sales and Marketing Management Magazine survey revealed that only 5% of US companies actually did MR, but these 5% represented over 80% of the stock market value. While SS functions best at improving a fixed product-service mix in stable conditions, MR looks for reasons to change its product-service mix, causing unstable conditions. Even though some of the statistical tools are similar, there are big differences in philosophy and scope between SS and MR. The question becomes how SS can support the MR driven change. IMHO, SS has not been a good substitute for MR anywhere I have seen it attempted. For SS to succeed in MR, it must totally adopt MR philosophies and methods, which it resists doing. This puts SS in a valuable supporting role, not a leading role. My 2 cents.Happy New Year All.

    0
    #166673

    Brandon
    Participant

    I agree Dean. SS will always have its place since all things will be accomplished through processes – regardless of what those “things” are. The difference I see is that SS won’t drive corp value as it has the last 20 or so yrs. “Meeting the market” will be the more dominant force – top notch processes will be a given or you’ll be run over.

    0
    #166674

    Deanb
    Participant

    I agree totally with your “meeting the market’ concept. This will be the value creator in the future.SS must adapt to this. At a minimum it must find a way to tactically (rapidly) support the rapid change and instability good marketing causes. This would be a nimble form of SS.A lofter goal would be to cross train BBs in marketing research. I suggested to ASQ yrs ago that a BBMR Certification be considered. The American Marketing Association has an online MR course and certification through GA Tech I believe. There is a lot of room for ASQ to enter this space. It would give BBs many career options also.Dean

    0
    #166675

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    I agree that innovation is a critical area that needs attention, especially for industry leaders and fast moving markets.  Innovation also must be integrated into the fast followers.  This doesn’t let the companies who are in more stable markets off the hook.  Though they may not need to apply innovation in the creation of new and advanced products / services, they still require innovation within their systems and processes in order to maintain their quality and cost competitiveness.  Those who do not innovate will be run over by those who do, whether it be in marketing / sales, engineering of products / services, or redesign and improvement of existing systems and processes.
     
    The question becomes, where to look for the innovation?  As Dr. Deming said, a customer never invented anything.  Looking to the VOC for innovation is not the way to go.  Things like TRIZ can help, but I think it ultimately gets back to the things I’ve mentioned before in my previous post.  Without a firm vision, with strategies and tactics that support attaining the vision and without management creating an environment that supports and enables innovation, it will not and cannot happen.
     
    Shooter

    0
    #166676

    Mikel
    Member

    Six sigma will be DEAD.
    There will be a return to the more rational teachings of Deming.

    0
    #166678

    Mark Tellier
    Participant

    As with anything else the DMAIC process,and DFSS are evolving. To say that they will not exist is non-pragmatic since they are proven methods. However, with the focus on manufacturing processes in an American economy that is shying away from standard production practices, there needs to be an evolution of six-sigma into the service sector and training using widgets actually needs to decrease in importance. I find that there are definitely indecisions and buy-in problems creeping up in that what is really the outcome in tangible deliverables being in question. It seems that the process itself in the selection, effectiveness, and alleviation of skepticism on the part of management should be approached as a primary training  issue in the evolution of six-sigma over the next five years.

    0
    #166679

    Joe BB
    Participant

    You’ve been saying it for 5 years now. When will your 5 years be up?

    0
    #166680

    w. g. miller
    Member

    I agree with Stan: in a few years, the term “Six Sigma” will be obsolete, and a Six Sigma Black Belt certificate and a dollar will get you a can of soda.
    What will survive is the concept that the gap between desired performance and actual performance can be narrowed by rational observation and analysis (in other words, we can learn from mistakes).  That concept predates Six Sigma, and will outlive it.
    Unfortunately, what won’t be learned is that you can’t take a single methodology and force-fit all problems to it by executive order.
    W. G. Miller

    0
    #166682

    Deanb
    Participant

    Shooter,I think good marketing triggers the biggest innovations. Get that and everything else falls in line: leadership, capital, cooperation, brilliant thinking, etc.SS is very capable of achieving innovation in the narrow context where repetition is high and markets and processes are stable. Unfortunately this represents the “little i.”The “Big I” comes from a deep understanding of market possibilities, where repetition is currently zero and processes do not exist yet. Consider the time when Ford had mastered the standard transmission and all vehicles had it. Process refinements came easily in such a stable environment. Then Ford realized that if an automatic transmission existed then twice as many people would want to drive cars. In this instance it was knowledge of a product constraint in meeting potential market demand that drove a major innovation (not continued focus on improving standard trannies). I can envision how the standard tranny gurus probably fought the automatic tranny initiatives, stating they had no history of process excellence,no high science, etc. Historically production experts have often been at ideological odds with visionary marketers. This is natural.What I am suggesting is SS needs to break this pattern and migrate into the “Big I” space anyway. In the last 2 years I have seen many BBs get transferred into field sales and marketing positions. These are smart companies IMHO.

    0
    #166684

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Deanb,
    My point is, even with good marketing, it requires good leadership that allows it to happen – at any level.  Consider another Ford example.
    Henry I was a great innovator with regard to process.  He had a visions and he applied the resources to make process innovation happen.  It led him to massive sales.  Yet, he resisted increased options and anything that took him away from the Tin Lizzy days.  The old addage was, you could have any color you wanted, just as long as it was black. 
    Edsel pushed his father to include more options and colors, but Henry was firm.  No Way!  The product was fine as it was.  It wasn’t until, in a fight for survival against upstart Buick, that he caved and allowed more options (styling, features and colors) that Ford fought its way back.  Without his permission and support, it wouldn’t have happened.  Leadership had to buy into it and support it.  Unlike Edsel, then Prsident of Fod, Henry did not understand how his markets had changed and the impact those changes had on his business.
    So, this takes us back to the profound knowledge and leadership, which I maintain is required for any innovations, whether it be in fast moving markets or rather stable markets.  The key is for managment to understand where they are and what they need. 
    Marketing is a system – it does not operate in a vacuum without management support.  You can put all the BBs you want into marketing and sales, but without management’s buy-in to allow them to innovate, and create the conditions for it to flourish, it won’t happen.  Management owns the system.  They give permission and they pay for it. 
    Marketing is closely tied in with engineering, as well.  They cannot market something that doesn’t exist.  Marketing can recommend a certain course of action, but they cannot make the product they envision.  It takes engineering, with massive amounts of cash to R&D and validate new designs.  Marketing can influence innovation, but they cannot mandate it.
    I think we are in more agreement than not, when it comes down to it.

    0
    #166685

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Sorry for the typos in the previous post, people.  Edsel Fod was not Prsident, but Edsel Ford was President.  I really should run spell check when it’s late in the evening – aging isn’t what it used to be.

    0
    #166694

    Deanb
    Participant

    Shooter,In your example, I would argue that it was not Edsel or Henry Ford’s leadership that triggered the innovations, but Edsel’s deep knowing of the market demand that eventually became overwhelming evidence that Henry could not ignore any more. Eventually, it is the deep knowing that leads the leaders.

    0
    #166696

    Deanb
    Participant

    We are both probably right. The leader and the system for maintaining the deep knowing must exist together, sort of as a check and balance. Good leaders do not wait for overwhelming evidence today, as Ford did. Today that would be too late.

    0
    #166697

    nedezero
    Participant

    Having just been hired as a process improvement specialiast at a bank, I can attest to how 6s is diffictult o apply in a service/financial industry.
    However, I am seeing of how a combination of 6s/Lean/TQL can be applied and morphed into a “new” dsiclipline.
    I decided to use the “Quality System” approach and model my efforts after the ISO 9001 standards. Now I am balancing project management, QA, and process improvement under a new office.
    A QMS is a great framework from which to operate from.
     
     

    0
    #166703

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    I agree.  And this is where I think six sigma has its shorcomings.  I can tell you a ton of stories of C-level execs who wait for the “perfect data and information” to make their decisions.  In many cases of true innovation (level 4 and 5 TRIZ type inventions), it is the gut level decision maker that wins the day and secures the market.  Six sigma’s mantra of “show me the data” supports this attitude of perfect knowledge.  I think it is the collective profound knowledge one has that allows for intuitive decisions related to innovation.  Now, I’m not saying that making decisions with no data should be done, but one shouldn’t wait for overwhelming evidence.  Today, in many industries, you are either the quick or the dead. 

    0
    #166727

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    W. G. Miller,
    If you are advocating trial and error then you are not in agreement with Stan’s post.

    0
    #167036

    reyvc
    Participant

    Your question is similar to asking where will today’s successful companies be after five years?  In Harvard U’s study of successful companies, (Blue Ocean Strategy) most of the acknowledged successful companies have faded after five years.  

    0
    #167044

    glynis.walker
    Participant

    Believe LSS will fade away just as Activity Based Costing (SBC) disappeared from the radar.  Systems thinking and a solid quality management approach will always outlive these flash-in-the pan efforts. We have spent a fortune on training, and have yet to see the level of predicted ROI from adoption of LSS, which was the case with our ABC efforts too.

    0
    #167047

    Fake ATI Alert
    Participant

    Forget the name ,the  principles  are the  same.
    You  can’t compare  a  comprehensive  program  like Lean-SS with ABC.
    I  believe money are  not  wasted 

    0
    #167074

    Mikel
    Member

    I’ll bet that your Quality Management would not stand up to an honest audit either. Either a company does what they say they will or they don’t.

    0
    #167076

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    I challenge anyone with a committed set of process participants, commited process owner, and a willingness to follow the methodology to not be able to solve a business problem using the data based, systematic approach of Six Sigma.
    It is those who argue whether a process map or a value stream map or a thought cloud is the best tool are the ones holding back process improvement. 

    0
    #167081

    Fake ATI Alert
    Participant

    Agree
    You  have  to  apply  the whole SS  toolkit to improve  the  process

    0
    #167085

    Six Sigma Shooter
    Member

    Not true.  It is amazing how often the root cause solution comes down to SOP’s that aren’t being followed – or that none exist to begin with – and measurement systems that aren’t capable.  I’ve had black belts that I’m mentoring have to change projects in mid-stream of their training because they have solved the problem in the early stages by fixing these issues. 
    You do not have to apply the whole SS toolkit to improve the process.  You do have to be ready and able to apply whatever tools and methods that are required to improve the process.  There is a huge difference.  Blindly applying all of the tools and following a strict methodology without profound knowledge is folly.
    Shooter

    0
    #167086

    Deanb
    Participant

    You are presuming all business problems can be solved by six sigma? The fact is, not all business problems are suited to the six sigma approach.Often other forms of thinking are needed to identify the true problem to be solved, and to assess how it can best be solved. I have seen conflicts, dysfunctional communication, fallacious thinking (including false presumptions about customer requirements), and other people problems that were clearly obstacles to all involved but had no hard data behind them, but needed solved pronto anyway. Classical philosophy supports this view also. In Kant’s Critique of Reason he cites 3 forms of reasoning that build knowledge: dialog, empiricism, and intuitive/innate knowing. Any one of these 3 can best solve certain kinds of problems. Alone each are limited at solving many problems, and together in proper proportions they can solve the most problems. Six sigma therefore needs to utilize dialog and innate knowledge whenever it can, and get out of the way anytime these other 2 forms have a natural edge over empiricism. I think Deming was deep into such philosophy. My 2 cents.

    0
    #167088

    Ryan
    Member

    http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/07_24/b4038406.htm?chan=gl
    For those of you discussing Six Sigma’s role in innovation, read this article for some insight into 3M’s experience.  Deanb, I noted your reference to 3M and submit that this article illustrates an example of how one structured, prescriptive approach to SS stifled innovation.
     

    0
    #167089

    Mikel
    Member

    In journalism terms, this is known as op ed. Opinion editorial. It is clear that the innovation pipeline was bloated and it seems this guy wants the good old days.

    0
    #167092

    Deanb
    Participant

    Ryan,Thanks for the article. Very relevant.The harder six sigma is deployed, the faster it will eventually be “returned to scale” to achieve needed balance between other necessary systems. Anyone can use six sigma to excessively capitalize on decades of brilliant innovation and market position. The key is to capitalize without cannibalizing “what got you there.” All good things need to be bounded by “other good things.”Dean

    0
    #167093

    Fake ATI Alert
    Participant

    Thank You

    0
Viewing 44 posts - 1 through 44 (of 44 total)

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