My company spent 2 million a few years ago for an outside company to "find" issues and problems. They came back after 6 months and said management was to blame for almost everything. The report was quashed immediately, the company was terminated, and same old shit prevailed. No wonder that 2 years later 2+[really closer to 4] billion dollars was "played" with by senior management which cost us about 90% of our stock price. I dumped the stock when it was high because I could see the wreck coming.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Am I wrong, or is the level chosen just arbitrary? I never got that part. There's also the fact that there comes a point where the costs to advance one more sigma level far outweigh the benefits. As such, it would seem that six is the boundary marker for most processes. I believe that is exactly the reason.

"Six sigma" means that your process will produce 3.4 defects per million.  That's where part of the abuse comes in - which measures do you count?  For example, you can choose the wrong dimension on a part that  the shop can produce everytime without fail, but the part won't fit at installation, or leaks, or has some other defect.  But everything is good, because your plant has Six Sigma quality.

Not to say it isn't effective somewhere

I have a great-nephew that works for a company that sent all of their engineers to a two week Six Sigma class about 18 months ago (at a great expense).  He said it really helped them figure-out where they could cut corners.  He said that's where Motorola really was able to take advantage of it by figuring-out where to cut the quality of parts and doing away with unneeded inspections/tests.  They make medical electronic devices, and he said that the cost of making their two most expensive products was cut in half by reducing the quality of parts (like buying Chinese capacitors instead of the better Japanese ones, buying smaller transformers, using undersized heatsinks, etc.) and by drastically reducing the amount of testing they do.  Despite cutting the cost in half, the rework rate (where they detect the problem with the device and fix it before it ships) and infant failures only increased by a small amount.  He is a firm believer that it can help any large company cut corners.  I'm not a believer in anything I've heard about it, but he's a bright kid and believes in it.z

Quoted: Not to say it isn't effective somewhere I have a great-nephew that works for a company that sent all of their engineers to a two week Six Sigma class about 18 months ago (at a great expense).  He said it really helped them figure-out where they could cut corners.  He said that's where Motorola really was able to take advantage of it by figuring-out where to cut the quality of parts and doing away with unneeded inspections/tests.  They make medical electronic devices, and he said that the cost of making their two most expensive products was cut in half by reducing the quality of parts (like buying Chinese capacitors instead of the better Japanese ones, buying smaller transformers, using undersized heatsinks, etc.) and by drastically reducing the amount of testing they do.  Despite cutting the cost in half, the rework rate (where they detect the problem with the device and fix it before it ships) and infant failures only increased by a small amount.  He is a firm believer that it can help any large company cut corners.  I'm not a believer in anything I've heard about it, but he's a bright kid and believes in it.z

Wait a minute.

Did you just write that it was a good thing that they make medical devices out of cheaper parts?

Quoted: Quoted: Not to say it isn't effective somewhere I have a great-nephew that works for a company that sent all of their engineers to a two week Six Sigma class about 18 months ago (at a great expense).  He said it really helped them figure-out where they could cut corners.  He said that's where Motorola really was able to take advantage of it by figuring-out where to cut the quality of parts and doing away with unneeded inspections/tests.  They make medical electronic devices, and he said that the cost of making their two most expensive products was cut in half by reducing the quality of parts (like buying Chinese capacitors instead of the better Japanese ones, buying smaller transformers, using undersized heatsinks, etc.) and by drastically reducing the amount of testing they do.  Despite cutting the cost in half, the rework rate (where they detect the problem with the device and fix it before it ships) and infant failures only increased by a small amount.  He is a firm believer that it can help any large company cut corners.  I'm not a believer in anything I've heard about it, but he's a bright kid and believes in it.z Wait a minute. Did you just write that it was a good thing that they make medical devices out of cheaper parts?

Ah, Six Sigma in practice.  Six Sigma, TQM, Lean Manufacturing....the biggest scams since the Savings and Loan Scandals of the eighties.  Huge, mega expensive "must need" programs that are designed to do one thing, help the big boys pretend to make money for the company ( stockholders ) by cutting quality, downsizing labor ( whilst "up sizing" the non working element...i.e. "management"....I use that term loosely ) and shifting money from one book to the next.   Yet another little hammer chipping away at the true American way.


Six Sigma and every program like it is a monsterous sham. A con.  Anyone who believes that  Six Sigma or anything like it is necessary to run a corporation effectively it has been bamboozled.  Six Sigma and it's ilk profess that American Companies cannot streamline or perfect processes by themselves.  They preach that "specialist" in such processes are needed to help companies come to terms with the fact that they are incapable of controlling and developing ways of managing manufacuturing.  Bullshit.  The fact is that many of the so called "managers" in American Corporations are politic-ing filth who are more concerned about image than substance.   I have yet to meet one of these new school managers that could manage his way out of a paper bag let alone run a manufacturing concern.  six Sigma is nothing but a "cover" for extremely poor management skills.

Period.

...and God help you if you criticize it.....

Did you just write that it was a good thing that they make medical devices out of cheaper parts?

They're only heart monitors.  It's not like they're anything important.

Just kidding.  Seriously, they were going to cut costs, like most companies with most products, so by using this process they were able to decide the best places where to cut costs.

I worked as an industrial engineer (time studies, yuck!) for a couple of textile companies, and we were constantly screwing-up when tried to cut costs.  Management would do stupid stuff.  The worst one was when it was mandated to cut the cost of every process by 10% across the board.  That was absolutely stupid, but we tried it.  Instead after years of screwing around we settled on buying cheaper cotton, running our spinning frames too fast (which created poorer quality yarn but did it faster), cut back on spinning frame rebuilds by 20% (which meant more spindles were idle due to problems but that was more than offset by the faster speed), had each employee cover more looms, but increased the cost of our cloth grading inspections by 30% by slowing down the cloth as it goes by the inspector and by building better inspecting stations.  You decide where you can cut costs and where you need to increase costs to handle the problems created by the cuts.  As I understand it with this method, we could have more easily decided where to cut costs.  I think it's a bunch of BS, but I've heard from him and from two others that it works very well for cutting costs while minimizing the increase in defects.  It's pushed as a way of increasing quality, but companies are much more interesting in cutting costs.

Deming was the father.

Toyota Production System is the pinnacle.

Six Sigma is Jack Welch's version.

I see.  My only experience with Six Sigma was from a MIS class I took (and actually withdrew from eventually) in my IT Master's program.  I could not for the life of me understand why the hell the professor kept talking about Six Sigma and all of this other shit that sounded like managerial gobbledygook when the class was SUPPOSED to be about information flow and systems analysis.  In other words, the class was supposed to be about determining and diagramming the flow of information (presumably using an IT system in a business) and here we are talking about manufacturing.  I couldn't figure it out.

He was also one of the most anal professors I've ever had.  I felt like I was in my junior year of high school English class again, with him critiquing each of his MASTER'S DEGREE students on comma placement in their paper bibliographies.  Now, I understand the idea behind it, but it was only a 10 week class, and frankly, most of us have more important things to worry about than commas - you know, like the CONTENT OF OUR FUCKING PAPERS!  The guy would be an ass about punctuation, but I could write a big steaming pile of bullshit and he'd nod sagely and say "I think you've got it."

In short, he was kind of an asshole.  As such, I think Six Sigma is for assholes.  I just hope he's not representative of ALL of the corporate management types, or I'm going to be working in the small business sector my entire life.

That class actually convinced me to leave school for a while and get some experience. Kinda the straw that broke the camel's back.

Quoted: Quoted: Not to say it isn't effective somewhere I have a great-nephew that works for a company that sent all of their engineers to a two week Six Sigma class about 18 months ago (at a great expense).  He said it really helped them figure-out where they could cut corners.  He said that's where Motorola really was able to take advantage of it by figuring-out where to cut the quality of parts and doing away with unneeded inspections/tests.  They make medical electronic devices, and he said that the cost of making their two most expensive products was cut in half by reducing the quality of parts (like buying Chinese capacitors instead of the better Japanese ones, buying smaller transformers, using undersized heatsinks, etc.) and by drastically reducing the amount of testing they do.  Despite cutting the cost in half, the rework rate (where they detect the problem with the device and fix it before it ships) and infant failures only increased by a small amount.  He is a firm believer that it can help any large company cut corners.  I'm not a believer in anything I've heard about it, but he's a bright kid and believes in it.z Wait a minute. Did you just write that it was a good thing that they make medical devices out of cheaper parts?

Cheaper parts doesn't always mean lower quality products. Hopefully in medical device example the safety factor wasn't compromised. If the life expectancy of the product is 5 years and doesn't need the highest performance chips, it makes sense to not buy the expensive state of the art chips with a 15 year life exepctancy. An older, slower technology which lasts 10 years will be cheaper, but not increase risks. I worked for a medical device company which used older technology chips because they were cheaper, more reliable, and had a longer life.

Quoted: My company spent 2 million a few years ago for an outside company to "find" issues and problems. They came back after 6 months and said management was to blame for almost everything. The report was quashed immediately, the company was terminated, and same old shit prevailed. No wonder that 2 years later 2+[really closer to 4] billion dollars was "played" with by senior management which cost us about 90% of our stock price. I dumped the stock when it was high because I could see the wreck coming.

This is why most programs fail. Management hopes to buy their way out of trouble. They don't want to hear anything which will cause them pain in their jobs. Sort of like buying weight loss pills and not expecting to have to diet or excercise.

I first took my Six Sigma training at Motorola, in 1989. Its good stuff.

Deming's Book, Out of the Crisis is 20 years old this year and still applies today! The Toyoto Production System is worth studying. GE was truly successful with Six Sigma in spite of comments earlier. They were ready culturally for Six Sigma in many respects.

Six Sigma is like some of the former programs, but requires top management involvement...a major factor in improving the chance for success. (top managment lip service is not enough).

TQM, Six Sigma, ISO-9000:2004, etc, all require a culture change and many executive leaders are not up to it. They still want to operate under the traditional command and control structure and concentrate on work efficiency and cutting supply costs, not improving systems and tapping into worker knowledge of problems and systems and where the big money is sitting.

I attended the ASQ National Six Sigma conference a few years ago. The successful companies all had two things in common: (1) They had true upper management support and understanding and (2) they adapted Six Sigma to fit their company culture. For example, in a low functioning company I would not even mention six sigma until I spent several years using lean to get rid of waste and inefficiency and teaching people how to communicate.

Six Sigma has a few theoretical issues I take issue with, but I have seen companies take those things into account in their adaptation by including some of Dr. Taguchi's ideas.

3.4 parts/million defective assumes a 1.5 sigma drift from the center of the tolerance zone. That is somewhat arbitratry. However, Motorola got good at teaching managers how to use basic problem solving tools and it served them well.

Maybe all those that bought into Six Sigma can throw some cash into this too.

Quoted: Maybe all those that bought into Six Sigma can throw some cash into this too. www.dianetics.org/pics/catalog/dns-kit-all-items_tn.jpg

Are you saying Six Sigma is a front for Scientology?

ETA:

Quoted: I'll be perfectly honest.  I don't understand any of this shit. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me, really.  The domain of paper-pushers that managed a B or C average to get their MBA. ETA: Not to say it isn't effective somewhere but I have a very hard time believing that because somebody got a certification, hiring them makes you X amount of money.  WTF?  Nobody would believe that if you replaced that certification with a certain college degree.  None of this shit is based in reality, just statistics and projections.  Seems to me somebody can be a Six Sigma Black Belt and still drive a company right into the ground.

Well, once again, just being certified or hiring someone who is doesn't mean jack. It needs to be APPLIED, and applied PROPERLY.

Six Sigma is really no different than, say, a Professional Engineer license. Just because you have such a certification doesn't make you God, and just because your company hires you doesn't mean an automatic amount of savings. But if you hire a good one, and they apply their knowledge well, you WILL see the difference.

The problem is that management either a) expects too much too fast, b) doesn't want to see changes to what it's used to, or c) concentrates too much on the METHOD rather than the RESULTS.

The most annoying thing about what I'm reading here is just how badly Six Sigma is misunderstood. That misunderstanding leads many who have never used it or studied it to make statements like "it's a sham" or "it's for assholes".

Six Sigma is a methodology and a related toolbox of techniques to help eliminate variation in a process. In short, it is just a tool. An exceedingly powerful one, at that.

Unfortunately, as with so many tools (including firearms), it can be grossly misused. When it is, the failure is attributed to the method rather than the people using it (or sponsoring it).

Six Sigma is not a method used to "cut corners". It can be utilized (when combined with Lean) to eliminate wasteful steps in a process, but if it's used just to cut corners, then you're using it wrong. I work in QA in the medical device field, and the story above gives me the creeps.

Yes, I've seen people inflate theis savings numbers, but that's usually because Management hasn't stepped up to the plate to help calculate a realistic number. I've also seen the attitude where Management says, "Well hey! He's BB certified! Let HIM run the place!" These are all examples of misuse of the principles and abdication of responsibility by those in charge.

Also, using Six Sigma to "go out and look for problems" is silly. Six Sigma is a tool you can use once you've found a problem, and not all problems require SS. Some just require a little common sense.

The company I left has that problem: a) the only send people to training who have projects that save X thousands of dollars, b) if your area has no issues, FIND SOME, and c) the methodology must be applied PRECISELY (in other words, the mothod is more important than the results). Complete idiocy, IMO, and a waste of opportunities.

That's not Six Sigma's fault. It's Management's.

Also, Six Sigma isn't like reengineering, or self-directed work teams, or quality circles, or any of that kind of flavor-of-the-month crap. Granted, several people (like me and my old boss) go through the training and spend a good deal of the time looking at each other and saying, "You mean they have to TEACH this shit?" because to us it's simply common sense. The statistical tools are surprisingly simple (although I do wish I understood them better). As such, it's not going to go away anytime soon, just like algebra isn't.

So for those of you who have heard or had bad experiences, I invite you to look deeper and find the REAL root cause of the problems.

Yes, I am passionate about Six Sigma because I know its strengths and weaknesses, I know where it is effective and where it isn't, and it annoys me to see it misused, misrepresented, and then maligned.

It's no different than a gun, really.

Quoted: ... So for those of you who have heard or had bad experiences, I invite you to look deeper and find the REAL root cause of the problems. ...

There's another popular topic.  Root cause analysis is accepted about as readily as a big ass snake in a desk drawer - no one wants to hear the results, and if the results shine to much light on the plant manager or one of his cronies, you might even be punished.  You can't talk about the Emporer's clothes.  When the results of the study start to become clear, the up and coming management star suddenly finds a new assignment leaving the remainder of the team holding the bag.

Quoted: There's another popular topic.  Root cause analysis is accepted about as readily as a big ass snake in a desk drawer - no one wants to hear the results, and if the results shine to much light on the plant manager or one of his cronies, you might even be punished.  You can't talk about the Emporer's clothes.  When the results of the study start to become clear, the up and coming management star suddenly finds a new assignment leaving the raminder of the team holding the bag.

Or......... they trump up charges and drive him out of the company.

Ask me how I know.

I am a Six Sigma green belt and an Electrical Engineer(heavy math major) and I can see both side of this argument.

Positive:  It can help identify the small things that are often overlooked in every day operations.  As these improvements are made, things run smoother.  You see some cost savings.

Negative:  Sometimes the change is obvious.  You don't need to spend 5 weeks collecting data and analyzing the output.  You can make the change right away and move on to something that need the attention 6-sigma causes.  

Idiotic: Companies demand "goals".  They say something stupid like "We're going to save 350,000 this quarter in HARD(cash) money.  This just makes lower level management lie.   My friend's project found he saved $65,000 in Hard money.  His "goal" was $150,000.  There was NO way he could save that.  Management made his team rewrite the report to include things not altered so they could show upper management they made it.

The problem is a lot of companies are stuck on idiotic.  6-sigma is becoming a buzz word that's giving a good process a bad name.  

Quoted: The problem is a lot of companies are stuck on idiotic.  6-sigma is becoming a buzz word that's giving a good process a bad name.

I think that's where I'm confused.  I have yet to see anything tangible re: Six Sigma.  Lots of words, no real substance as far as I'm concerned.  Most of the time when I hear about Six Sigma or other things of that nature, my bullshit detector peaks, because it sounds to me like corporate consultant doublespeak.  It may very well be that there are a lot of people "on board" Six Sigma that don't understand it but pretend that they do.  Also, minor note, those certification names (Green Belt, Black Belt) are so "cute" it makes me sick.

I dunno, maybe it's just that I have a problem when a company gets so big that they can afford to keep people on the payroll to generate tons of sound and fury signifying nothing.  I guess business school grads have to work somewhere, though.  It just seems so ultimately pointless and bureaucratic to me.  I'm also quite leary of anything that can't be explained to me simply without someone saying "you have to go in for training", at least on a basic level.

Quoted: I dunno, maybe it's just that I have a problem when a company gets so big that they can afford to keep people on the payroll to generate tons of sound and fury signifying nothing.  I guess business school grads have to work somewhere, though.  It just seems so ultimately pointless and bureaucratic to me.  I'm also quite leary of anything that can't be explained to me simply without someone saying "you have to go in for training", at least on a basic level.

You are obviously VERY mistaken.

First off, Six Sigma is not a management system, it is an engineering methodology. It is highly mathematical in nature. It is not something you learn in business school.

It is a combination of Applied Statistics and Industrial Engineering. It has ZERO to do with management. That's why many people DO need to go to training, even on a basic level. Management needs to be trained so they understand what the system is so that when they sponsor projects, they know WTF they're talking about (in theory, anyway).

Now, as Tannim so correctly pointed out, Management all to often goes and screws with the system, or else completely misunderstands it and therefore either doesn't support it or uses it incorrectly.

As for keeping people on the payroll to generate sound and fury but little else, that description sounds like most managers I've met, but few Six-Sigma types who actually know what they're doing. Believe me, when applied properly, the system more than pays for itself, especially when applied to older processes and systems that NEED improvement.

But, once again echoing Tannim, not every problem requires Six Sigma. Most business processes would benefit from the application of simple Lean techniques. Six Sigma applies more to numerical processes such as manufacturing and even logistics. You've got to apply the right tool to the right problem, otherwise you create a real mess.

Quoted: Its the current flavor of the month in the corporate world for some people to justify their existence in finding a complex and expensive solution to a simple problem.  Instead of asking the people in the trenches companies hire overpaid analysts to give them a solution, it looks good on paper and makes for great fill in on your annual report to shareholders/board members........so basically it looks good on you resume and will help you move up until the next fad comes along.....go for it.

Yes, what he said.

It's currently "in" where I work along with about 3 other 'Quality' schemes. It's tough to figure out what day it is and which 'program' we are using.

TQM/Lean/SS/What's next week? These are ideas that may have some merit but don't apply to all situations and process all the time.

Right now it seems to be about generating paperwork in case an auditor comes by. I'd say SARBOX is currently driving more unnecessary work than anything else. I'd love to see some measures for what the    real cost of some of these 'requirements' are.

Lately I've come to believe it's all about generating income for the current consultants. They'll move along to the NBT when this ones about played out.

I'd still love to have the time to get all those certs though. If it pumps up my paycheck$ I'll play along and sip the Kool-Aid.

Quoted: Does anyone work with Six Sigma principals of quality improvement?  My New Years resolution is to pursue a Green Belt certification in the Six Sigma arena. For those that don't know about Six Sigma it's a methodology where the goal is to reduce "defects" (be they broken widgets, re-work, or other profit sucking weakness) in you business processes.  Most often these principals are used in manufacturing but I'm going to adapt it to my line of work (healthcare project management). There are at least three certifications I'm currently aware of: Green Belt, Black Belt and Master Black Belt.   Does anyone work with this methodology?  Has it been effective for your company?  Any words of wisdom?

Norfolk Southern (a railroad) uses it but how much it has helped is unknown by me as an employee. I have been in a group study by our Six Sigma people but I am not part of Six Sigma.  

Quoted: Deming was the father. Toyota Production System is the pinnacle. Six Sigma is Jack Welch's version.

Harry and Schroeder can, however, easily be forgiven for their impression that Six Sigma is the first program to require this kind of commitment and understanding from all levels of the organization. Most people in the quality/ productivity business still believe that Japan (particularly Toyota) invented lean manufacturing. The Japanese actually learned it from Henry Ford's books, and Taiichi Ohno (father of the Toyota Production System) makes no secret of this.


Not long ago, in its global pursuit of the Truth, the Consultant Debunking Unit (CDU) journeyed to Japan for a tour of the car-making facility in Toyota City. Guided by engineers, we heard a lot about the legendary quality of Toyota's vehicles. Eager to show we knew a thing or two about quality ourselves, we soft-balled our hosts with the obvious question: "When did Toyota start using Six Sigma, anyway?"


Long silence. After some awkward consultation in Japanese, the engineers asked us, "What is Six Sigma?"

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/98/debunk.html

Quoted: Quoted: ... So for those of you who have heard or had bad experiences, I invite you to look deeper and find the REAL root cause of the problems. ... There's another popular topic.  Root cause analysis is accepted about as readily as a big ass snake in a desk drawer - no one wants to hear the results, and if the results shine to much light on the plant manager or one of his cronies, you might even be punished.  You can't talk about the Emporer's clothes.  When the results of the study start to become clear, the up and coming management star suddenly finds a new assignment leaving the remainder of the team holding the bag.

Please stop, I don't have to go back to work until tomorrow and y'all are digging up all my demons and nightmares.

The horror, the horror............

In my experience, that last thing high-level managers want is highly trained experts who can prove what incompetant boobs they are.

Our company is required to take up the Six Sigma flag due to demands by a major client. Said client uses it and feels that if we aren't we're not up to the task. Client is riddled with idiocy.    

Having gone over the material I've asked the few folks at my company taking the course why we can't just use common sense? Everything they discuss points to just using our damn brains!
The sad part is that so far it hasn't helped a bit. The main problem being client demands and the nature of our biz.  A lot of the SS bits just don't fit. Client wants "A" done this way and "B" done this other way and that's final. We have to play along even though the request goes against SS guidelines.
Maybe for some companies but not ours. I still think it's waste of time, money and resources. Of course I've been told I have a bad attitude because I answer questions with stone cold facts instead of sugar coated bullshit.

YMMV

Quoted: In my experience, that last thing high-level managers want is highly trained experts who can prove what incompetant boobs they are.

Or not-so-highly paid employees....

We have "LEAN MFG" where I work, with piss poor management

They took it on in the begining for the right reasons, and it worked out pretty good. All of the managemnt involved got promotions

Then they brought in some  people off of the street as managers and it turned into a nasty trainwreck  


There is no light at the end of the tunnel right now, but hopefully sometime in the next couple of years we can udo what bad management took "Lean" to stand for

Quoted: There is no light at the end of the tunnel right now, but hopefully sometime in the next couple of years we can udo what bad management took "Lean" to stand for

Where do I send my resume?

Quoted: In my experience, that last thing high-level managers want is highly trained experts who can prove what incompetant boobs they are.

Tell it like it is !

Quoted: Quoted: There is no light at the end of the tunnel right now, but hopefully sometime in the next couple of years we can udo what bad management took "Lean" to stand for Where do I send my resume?

Come to Boeing - the "Lean Engineering" organization has coined a new name for work groups: "HILT".

Hold on a second and I'll see if I can find out what that stands for...

"Horizontal Integration Leadership Teams"

Hold on a second while I LMAO again ...

www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2005/july/i_ids2.html

One of these days I will give y'all a writeup on the "Common Structures Workstation", and how it is supposed to revolutionize strength analysis and reiterative design at Boeing.  Too bad we do almost zero reiteration in St. Louis, we just size the parts and get them out the door.  I've been writing application templates for this project for about 1.5 months.  My suggestions are getting little play, since they require  way more corporate investment to get the software populated with applications.  I didn't find any public propaganda, only a Georgia Tech article that is pretty funny in that they haven't provided anything except a rehash of some obsolete "flow charts", using that description loosely, plus a suggestion for a dreamworld of data integration across competing and proprietary software.

I would just like to say.....

Thank you guys for reminding me about Six Sigma, Quality, Lean, MBO, and all that kind of stuff.

It reminds me of why it is so wonderful to be out of that mess.  

Thank you Jesus, for retirement.

Quoted: You are obviously VERY mistaken. First off, Six Sigma is not a management system, it is an engineering methodology.

Indeed I was.

I guess my impressions of it have come mostly from hearing it used as a sort of buzzword.  I STILL can't nail down what exactly it is.  For example, I've never been to AA, but I can tell you what the 12 steps are (or at least look them up on the Internet).  Six Sigma, Lean, and the rest of it I have never seen a concise, concrete explanation, at least not that I have understood.

There always exists the possibility that I am mentally retarded, so I wouldn't rule that out.

ETA:  If you reread that "Six Sigma is for assholes" thing, you'll see that I was making light of the fact that because I thought that guy was a blowhard, my feelings towards Six Sigma and in fact most things of this type are fairly negative.  It just all seems so, I dunno, corporate, detached from reality.  I could handle a message that says "bring down production costs by buying cheaper parts" or in defects "engineer products that can use wider tolerances in part dimensions so we don't have to throw out as much as 'defective'".  I can get all of that.  What I DON'T get is how such decisions can be made as part of some all-encompassing process that solves all problems.  How can a methodology account for creative thinking and problem solving?

I just feel like every time I press, I hit a brick wall with Six Sigma, like everyone that goes to get certified signs a non-disclosure agreement that makes Scientologists green with envy.

Quoted: What I DON'T get is how such decisions can be made as part of some all-encompassing process that solves all problems.  How can a methodology account for creative thinking and problem solving?

That right there has always been our advantage for competing against the rest of the world.

The Soviets plotted "Technology Stage" vs. "Time" to project where they wanted an industry to go.  Unfortunately for them, the US was always several years ahead of their curves.  

This is still our advantage for competing with offshored IT jobs in India; Indians will get bogged down by trying to implement some regimented format while a US programmer analyst will solve the problem by essentially coloring outside the lines.  

This is also an advantage we hold in our aircraft engineering, design, and fab knowledge - just how many of those complicated differential equations do you suppose are really solved during the design of an airplane?  The secret is knowing what is really required to pull it all together, and the most efficient path.  The Japanese don't know the secret, the Indians don't know the secret, the Chinese don't know the secret, and the Soviets pulled it off by brute force with predetermined design solutions.  None of them will ever discover the secret by reverse engineering, in fact that path leads down blind alleys.

Quoted: Quoted: There is no light at the end of the tunnel right now, but hopefully sometime in the next couple of years we can udo what bad management took "Lean" to stand for Where do I send my resume?

Hey, I'm local and can drop my resume off.
Seriously. Really Really Seriously.

ETA: Please ignore that hint of frustration with current employment

Greenbelt Certified. The company I work for has an entire business unit that trains and deploys green/black belt people back to the working masses. It's a great way to change the way people think, but unless every single peorson you work with is on the same page it's really not useful.

I worked for Bombardier/Learjet in Wichita KS.(last day was today).  To me, the average grunt on the floor Six Sigma is a waste of time and money. It seemed to me that after most companies adopt Six Sigma soon after file for Chapter 11.  I feel that Six Sigma is a check mark on the "We did everything that we could to reduce costs" list for a Judge.  The bad thing about Six Sigma is that it takes any motivation  the average guy on the floor has to recommend improvements . Because his ideas will be turned over to some mid level management Six Sigma agent to take all the credit.The zero tolerance goal of Six Sigma of Six Sigma is impossable. Aircraft are still "Hand Built" and  anyone who tells you diffrent is a liar. On a true assembly line operation line may have an advantage but for most operations it just doesnt fit. It's like ISO, SAP, and all the other programs that are out there to solve all your problems. As far as taking the training I would recomend taking all you can because it is a checkmark for promotion in every company who has signed into it. Take the training and see if it fits your companies needs.

Quoted: Quoted: There is no light at the end of the tunnel right now, but hopefully sometime in the next couple of years we can udo what bad management took "Lean" to stand for Where do I send my resume?

If you are serious, IM me, I'll give you a link you can check out

The guys that are quick to dismiss it as horseshit because they don't understand it are the reasons why 6 Sigma exists in the first place.  

Go into any organization and every old timer operator will tell you they don't need no fancy math bullshit or engineers, they've been running that production line for 15 years and know exactly what to do.  However, their visibility and experience is at a very low level, this is fine for fixing major problems but to get to a world class kick ass level of quality, a holistic and high level approach has to be taken.  The solutions that aren't obvious need to be found and this requires data and regression analyses, not just experience alone.  Especially in production environments where you have dozens of major variables interacting with each other, there is no way to isolate them all, and no way your brain can develop an intuitive understanding of the process, the best approach is the academic approach.  

In most projects I did, we would go into an organization, ask what the major problems were, and every worker told us the problems that created the most pain for them.  These problems contributed only maybe 40% to the rejects, delays, etc...  We would do a process map, ask "why" 5 times, find out where the major causes of rejects, delays, rework, etc.. are, and would find much of the problem was outside of where they were pointing.  That's the beauty of the tools, it takes solutions through several layers of problems, removes the emotional aspects, and introduces fact/data driven thinking.

As already mentioned, it's no substitute for poor management, but it never was intended to be.  It carries overhead (ie data collection, data analysis, etc..), so if not done properly, it can make things much worse, but if done properly, it can make a big difference.

Quoted: The guys that are quick to dismiss it as horseshit because they don't understand it are the reasons why 6 Sigma exists in the first place.   Go into any organization and every old timer operator will tell you they don't need no fancy math bullshit or engineers, they've been running that production line for 15 years and know exactly what to do.  However, their visibility and experience is at a very low level, this is fine for fixing major problems but to get to a world class kick ass level of quality, a holistic and high level approach has to be taken.  The solutions that aren't obvious need to be found and this requires data and regression analyses, not just experience alone.  Especially in production environments where you have dozens of major variables interacting with each other, there is no way to isolate them all, and no way your brain can develop an intuitive understanding of the process, the best approach is the academic approach.

Preach it, brother!

I didn't read all 4 pages. I am a certified Master Black Belt. Been training Black Belts, Green Belts, and other Master Black Belts for several years now.

When applied, and correctly supported by top management, it can work wonders. Our company uses it in most areas, and we are saving about $18 million per month right now. This represents the benefits we have seen from thousands of projects.

Quoted: Quoted: The guys that are quick to dismiss it as horseshit because they don't understand it are the reasons why 6 Sigma exists in the first place.   Go into any organization and every old timer operator will tell you they don't need no fancy math bullshit or engineers, they've been running that production line for 15 years and know exactly what to do.  However, their visibility and experience is at a very low level, this is fine for fixing major problems but to get to a world class kick ass level of quality, a holistic and high level approach has to be taken.  The solutions that aren't obvious need to be found and this requires data and regression analyses, not just experience alone.  Especially in production environments where you have dozens of major variables interacting with each other, there is no way to isolate them all, and no way your brain can develop an intuitive understanding of the process, the best approach is the academic approach.   Preach it, brother!

+100

Go look at the growth timeline of GE, and correlate it with Jack Welch becoming the CEO.

GE can complete on a global basis with the best of the Chinese and Japanese.

Unless organizations can adopt similar strategies for lean processes, they are already out of business.

Quoted: Quoted: The guys that are quick to dismiss it as horseshit because they don't understand it are the reasons why 6 Sigma exists in the first place.   Go into any organization and every old timer operator will tell you they don't need no fancy math bullshit or engineers, they've been running that production line for 15 years and know exactly what to do.  However, their visibility and experience is at a very low level, this is fine for fixing major problems but to get to a world class kick ass level of quality, a holistic and high level approach has to be taken.  The solutions that aren't obvious need to be found and this requires data and regression analyses, not just experience alone.  Especially in production environments where you have dozens of major variables interacting with each other, there is no way to isolate them all, and no way your brain can develop an intuitive understanding of the process, the best approach is the academic approach.   Preach it, brother!

Snookems, in theory you are absolutely correct.  Proper streamlining, goal setting and M.O.C.s ARE essential to good business.....BUT when things like Six Sigma, Lean and TQM are used by a bunch of coporate goons to make the stockholders happy WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY ACTUAL BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY then it's a con.  The principles of any of these programs are certainly important but these programs are by and large practiced by people (management, usually) who have little IF ANY concept of how a factory floor works.  I have NEVER seen TQM, Lean or SIX Sigma work ( and we are in Brown Phase right now ) and the reason is that management doesn't CARE if it works.  They take every single improvement that technicians, operators and engineers ask for and ignore them....then they listen to the guy who's been sucking his way to the top of the corporate ladder and they listen to HIM.  You know the guy....they guy who never spent a day at work actually working, he spent it finding who to suck up to.  They guy who is too pretty to get his hands dirty but doen't mind wrapping his lips around the bosse....well, you get my drift.  It's they guy who CAN'T so he becomes a manager.

Quoted: The guys that are quick to dismiss it as horseshit because they don't understand it are the reasons why 6 Sigma exists in the first place.

... Finally, someone that understands 6∑

... Was going to type up a dissertation on its benefits but figured it would fall mostly on deaf, old ears.

... Anyone that argues against the principles of genuine continuous improvement simply will not be in the business to do so in the near future. Granted, if not deployed correctly or with the hearty support of management, it can be worthless.

... Even still, these days there are fewer "dictatorship" type managers left in successful businesses. Most of them are being replaced by folks that have the shareholders interests in mind.

... It's amazing this thread has gone along this far, largely promoted by folks that haven't a clue what they speaks of.

Quoted: The guys that are quick to dismiss it as horseshit because they don't understand it are the reasons why 6 Sigma exists in the first place.   [cliffnotemode]blah, blah, blah, [/cliffnotemode] ....it can make a big difference.

Quoted: Quoted: The guys that are quick to dismiss it as horseshit because they don't understand it are the reasons why 6 Sigma exists in the first place.   [cliffnotemode]blah, blah, blah, [/cliffnotemode] ....it can make a big difference. photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=42823

buwhahahahahahahahahaaaa  

Go, EARP, GO!!!!

If you design a product correctly so it can be built easily and perform reliably you will never need Six sigma.  SS is a reactive tool to be used in a "sick" system.  AQP + DFM/A = World class.

Quoted: Snookems, in theory you are absolutely correct.  Proper streamlining, goal setting and M.O.C.s ARE essential to good business.....BUT when things like Six Sigma, Lean and TQM are used by a bunch of coporate goons to make the stockholders happy WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY ACTUAL BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY then it's a con.  The principles of any of these programs are certainly important but these programs are by and large practiced by people (management, usually) who have little IF ANY concept of how a factory floor works.  I have NEVER seen TQM, Lean or SIX Sigma work ( and we are in Brown Phase right now ) and the reason is that management doesn't CARE if it works.  They take every single improvement that technicians, operators and engineers ask for and ignore them....then they listen to the guy who's been sucking his way to the top of the corporate ladder and they listen to HIM.  You know the guy....they guy who never spent a day at work actually working, he spent it finding who to suck up to.  They guy who is too pretty to get his hands dirty but doen't mind wrapping his lips around the bosse....well, you get my drift.  It's they guy who CAN'T so he becomes a manager.

Well I don't disagree with that at all.  The firm I worked for put their fees at risk contingent on the long term results so the first thing we preached was that it was not a silver bullet.  It was amazing how many managers wanted us to hand them a promotion while they sat on their ass.  That's just the way people are.  Some people buy themselves the latest golf clubs, guns, cameras, etc... with the false hopes that it will make them good golfers, shooters, photographers, etc..   However if you don't invest yourself into it, these tools will do nothing for you.  Sounds to me that the managers you've had to work with operated the same way.  Unfortunately, there's no shortage of people who will sell to them.

Quoted: If you design a product correctly so it can be built easily and perform reliably you will never need Six sigma.  SS is a reactive tool to be used in a "sick" system.  AQP + DFM/A = World class.