Re: Six Sigma

["Jerry Mairani" <quality1@inreach.com>]

The discussion on six sigma has been most interesting and as I am a guilty
instigator I would like to summarize for comment what I think I have
learned.

First, I believe my basic premise that six sigma (the math) is but a tool is
still valid.  As with any tool the danger is not with the tool but its use.
I still believe that conceptually there will be times it will be useful to
have a method of comparison for unlike elements.

Second, I am more convinced than ever that as being sold six sigma is very
dangerous.  Six sigma is being sold as a system, one that is flawed.  When I
was Northern California Regional Manager for Quality for Pacific Bell (try
and get that on a business card), in 1989 we had Motorola come and spend a
day with us here in Sacramento.  They spoke of six sigma then and also the
many other elements of their program.  They used loss function, SPC, CQI
Teams, etc., and while they had not neatly packaged what they were doing
they had Juran and Deming interweaved throughout their efforts.  As such
they had shown excellent improvement.  That's why we invited them.  They
built what worked for them.  You cannot package that as a product as all
systems are different

Education and understanding is different than training and knowledge
(Ackoff).  You can train the math (knowledge) but if it is to be used
successfully and for the good it must be wrapped in education and
understanding consistent with the system it is being introduced into too.

Jerry Mairani
Advantage Management Consulting
quality1@inreach.com
========================================================================