RE: No Conflict Between Deming's Ideas and Six Sigma

["John McConnell" <wysowl@msn.com.au>]

Bill Woodall wrote:

Most comments I have read here are quite negative regarding Six Sigma.

In my view one unimportant part of Six Sigma conflicts with Dr. Deming's
ideas, but the rest don't.

***********
I was fortunate enough to be at the first six sigma seminar conducted in
Australia, in the eighties.  Dr. Mikel Harry was the principal speaker.
Harry left us in no doubt whatsoever that the approach was built on twin
pillars, reducing variation and systems thinking.

He then went on to say that there were two complimentary approaches to
implementation:

1. THE SHOTGUN APPROACH.  Understanding and reducing variation (on a process
or systems basis) was an important part of everyone's job.  It was not
optional.  He described several "significant emotional events" that some
managers experienced because they were not seen to be participating.

2. THE SNIPER RIFLE APPROACH.  Here Harry discussed the more sophisticated
statistical tools/approaches (that required specially trained people) to
find the points of leverage that gave the best bang for the buck.
This was before the approach had coloured belts and much of the structure
now associated with it.

As I walked away, I was left with the opinion that whilst Harry's approach
was novel in some areas, and that I did not agree with all of it, the
cornerstones were two of the elements of SoPK.

Often, it is instructive to study a concept or idea in it's original form.
If we want to understand Deming, it might be a good idea to read the man
whom Deming called "The Master", Shewhart.  If we want to understand six
sigma, perhaps we should study not that which we now see in the marketplace,
but rather the original core concepts as put together by Harry, Smith et.al.
Dr.Ishikawa gives an excellent example of this on a small handbook on
quality he edited in the seventies (I think).  

He explained how QC circles
originated in the fifties.  We went to Japan in the late seventies and
eighties, and saw what our mental models allowed us to see and we brought
home productivity improvement circles or inventory reduction circles, and so
on.  Ishikawa's booklet takes us back to the original problems and ideas.
The quality Control Circle was conceived as a method of training millions of
Japanese foremen and workers in quality control and improvement.  It was
done in conjunction with a periodic magazine and lessons broadcast on Japan
short wave.

When we tried to copy QC Circles, we didn't even get close.  Many of us were
doomed from the outset.  Now we are struggling with six sigma...but what are
we reading?  Are we reading something produced by a consultant who has
revised the work of another consultant without ever studying Harry's
original work?  Rule 4 Rules!

Three times in recent months I have conducted seminars for companies that
have lately "got into" six sigma.  Several black belts were in each of the
audiences.  On all three occasions these folks could take us through DMAIC
and the PPM defects notion.  Not one of them had been instructed in the
notion that the PPM defects was achieved by bringing a strong focus to bear
on understanding and reducing variation, particularly in the upstream
elements.

What is six sigma; to which version do you refer?  There are many.
All this reminds me of a time long ago when I was a Second Lieutenant.  Our
new One Star General arrived and did a quick appraisal of the capabilities
of his units, with particular regard to the infantry battalions.  He then
wrote a letter to all officers.  He explained how impressed he was with the
new mobility capabilities, how the new radar and other surveillance
equipment was most impressive...and he continued to wax lyrical in a similar
vein for several paragraphs.  The final paragraph said that unfortunately,
the one thing his battalions could not do was to kill, and that was all they
were ever intended to do.  He then set about rebuilding on first principles,
re-teaching us how to kill.

What was Deming's intent?  

What was Harry's intent?  

Do we need to go back
to first principles to even begin to understand?

Have fun!
John