RE: Six Sigma remuneration

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

 There has been a fair amount of heated discussion on the DEN in the past
about Six Sigma.  It is my opinion that Six Sigma is very anti-Deming, in
the following ways:

1.  You need a numerical target in order to determine if you are "six sigma
capable".

2.  The reliance on "bottom line" short term profit, and primarily a
reliance on cost cutting rather than increase in production.

3.  The whole 1.5 sigma shift - it is statistically invalid, SPC done in a
proper manner will easily detect a 1.5 sigma shift in a reasonable period of
time.

4.  The reliance on "belts" for driving improvement, who are very high
priced, are usually the "fair haired" boys and girls.  In comparison, Deming
(and I may add the US OSHA Voluntary Protection Program) relies upon the
management doing its job, and employees providing the expertise and
knowledge from their perspective.

5.  Six Sigma projects are usually very stove piped and rarely look at the
whole system. 

6.  Elimination of defects does not mean an effective system has been put in
their place.

See also Bill Latzko's paper in the DEN web site.

I should also add that Dupont recently visited Fluor Hanford on a safety
assessment.  They saw we were doing SPC, and mentioned they did SPC as part
of six sigma.  So, in my briefing to them on performance indicators, I added
the following power point slide:

"This is not Six Sigma"

Minimal reliance on numerical targets
Long term rather than short term thinking
Improvement through employee involvement and management leadership rather
than "belts"
No 1.5 sigma shift 
Appreciation for interaction between safety and productivity and quality


Steve Prevette
Occupational Safety and Health
Fluor Hanford, A Fluor Government Group Project
ASQ Certified Quality Engineer
steven_s_prevette@rl.gov
509-373-9371