RE: Six Sigma & Deming Philosophies!

["Prevette, Steven S" <Steven_S_Prevette@rl.gov>]

Carrying on the discussion of Six Sigma, Richard Zultner asked questions
with respect to my list of 4 concerns with Six Sigma.

My List:

1.  Six Sigma looks only at measurable dollar costs, and tends to focus only
on short term costs.  
2.  Six Sigma relies upon numerical targets. 
3.  Six Sigma knowledge is focused in "belts", who tend to be "fair haired"
up and coming managers.  Training (and very expensive training at that) is
concentrated in an elite few individuals. 
4.  The "1.5 sigma shift" is not statistically meaningful, and completely
undermines the principles of SPC.

Richard's comments:

Question 2: In many Six Sigma efforts, the numerical targets are targets for
improvement chosen by those who will try to make the improvement (and in
many cases is not tied to any compensation increase). I am not aware of any
problem with such numerical targets from a Deming perspective. Is there
anyone who feels Dr. Deming opposed ANY numerical targets under ALL
circumstances?

SSP:  Dr. Deming did acknowledge there are "facts of life".  Those numbers
that your company must achieve in order to stay in business.  One cannot
lose money every single quarter forever and stay in business.  However, in
general Dr. Deming was quite against numerical targets.  It is quite plain
in his 14 points.  But it is amazing how many people insist on justifying
targets.  I think Henry Neave put it best when he said there are "three
kinds of numbers".

1.  Those numbers that are facts of life.  We must meet these commitments or
we are out of business.

2.  Planning numbers.  In order to determine which decision alternative to
choose, I need some estimates that I can compare decisions by.  I do need a
budget, a schedule, for planning purposes.

3.  Those numbers used to judge people by.  Avoid these.  

My contention is that the vast majority of Six Sigma targets fall into the
3rd group.  For Six Sigma, come heck or high water, every measure has to
have a target.  The polite term for the usual source of these targets is
"out of thin air".  In the original Motorola concept of six sigma, some of
the numbers were category one numbers.  They were customer specifications.
If we don't meet the customer specs, we don't stay in business (I should
note that you can still go out of business even while meeting customer
specs).  But in the Six Sigma efforts I have so far observed and from those
I have first hand reports from, much effort is spent in coming up with the
targets, almost as much effort as is put into the improvement effort.  I
have a little writeup called "The Tyranny of Targets" that I will send
Richard, and to anyone else upon request.

REZ> Questions 1 & 3: In the 1980's, the Total Quality Management movement
began based on an American understanding of Japanese Quality Control
methods, often derived from a study of Deming Prize winning companies. This
was a time when Dr. Deming was active and vocal in propounding his
philosophy. Yet today there is virtually no presence of Deming methods --
except for a handful of "Deming Disciples" (usually people who had personal
contact with Dr. Deming). The Deming/TQM wave passed, leaving small
vestiges, such as this list.

SSP - Hmmm, okay.  So then why are you on this list?  There must be
something of interest to you in these vestiges . . .  By the way, I never
had personal contact with Dr. Deming.

REZ - Yet companies, facing perennial competition, must improve -- and seek
some way to do so. If you were a senior manager, facing pressure to improve,
what kind of method would you look for? A method that is popular, used by
leading companies, and is well packaged, well documented, and well
supported? That's Six Sigma. In the marketplace of ideas, Six Sigma wins the
hearts and minds of the masses -- and it's implement-able, now. 

Lot's of people buy cookbooks that tell them exactly what to do, to prepare
meals, today. Six Sigma is an improvement cookbook for the masses.

Only people who are really serious about cooking read "philosophical
classics" by great chefs of the past. [These are also the people most likely
to become great chefs themselves.] Deming is for those who are truly serious
about improvement. And who can somehow find adequate mentoring (it is so
easy to get key points of Dr. Deming's teachings wrong... as the involved
discussions on this list often demonstrate... ).

SSP - I would liken this argument to - would you rather go to McDonalds and
pay $50 for a Big Mac meal that has been under the heat lamp for the past 6
hours?  Or go to a "great chef's" restaurant for a great $20 meal, and also
learn how to cook the meal and become a great chef?




Steve Prevette
Occupational Safety and Health
Fluor Hanford, A Fluor Global Services Company
ASQ Certified Quality Engineer
steven_s_prevette@rl.gov
509-373-9371