RE: My thoughts after 6 sigma conference

["Murphy, Kevin P (GEAE)" <kevin.p.murphy@ae.ge.com>]

John Hunter wrote: 

" I just returned from the 6 sigma conference (the ASA Quality and Productivity 
Research Conference) which I recommended earlier.  It helped me and I think 
it was valuable.
<<snip>>

Other:
1) Statistics plays a much larger role than in any other TQM model I am aware 
of.  DoE (design of experiments) and other advanced and very useful 
statistics tools are much more in the forefront than they are in TQM normally 
and in the Deming community (based on DEN messages, Deming master books, 
Deming related conferences...)


8) While 6 sigma does try and focus on the customer I think the customer is 
put after short term dollar costs (6 sigma people would not agree, I don't 
think).  I do think 6 sigma does a better job of customer focus than is 
exhibited by most all companies......



I think the Deming community could benefit most from quantifying dollar 
benefits more, some of the statistically tools, the idea of full time Quality 
Advisors (Black Belts or whatever you want to call them that work full time 
on improvement efforts) and more emphasis on getting short term results.  Yes 
I do realize many important benefits are unknown and unknowable.  And I do 
realize the danger involved in short term focus (I think the Breakthrough 
System presented by Lloyd Provost at the last Deming Institute conference is 
a great example of getting fast results in a manner consistent with the 
Deming philosophy)....."

I think your analysis is almost right on the mark. I do agree that, typically,
the customer is put after the short term dollars. This is not something that
Mikel Harry and the Six Sigma Academy preaches, but is rather a result of how
companies are implementing it. Although, of course, it is really a result of an
interaction between them, because measuring the financial gains is taught as
being quite important.

I do have to disagree very strenuously on your statement that Six Sigma promotes
the use of statistics more than the Deming philosophy. Six Sigma goes an inch
deep and a mile wide on the use of statistics. I would agree that more of their
message promotes the use of statistics, because that is the majority of what
they are selling, but I don't agree that Six Sigma is attempting to get you to
use statistics in more places/scenarios than what Deming advocated. As we know,
many "TQM" consulting companies in the 80's and 90's tried to teach Deming Lite.
First cover that statistical thing. Teach some tools. Now let's teach Teams.
Everyone loves teams. Oh, yes. Process maps, too. Now go off and...
 
Six Sigma says, "You need to use these tools everywhere and learn more of them
than you did before". Having more breadth on statistics will be harder for many
consulting companies and consultants, so although popular, there will be fewer
consulting sources for Six Sigma than TQM had. Many TQM courses/seminars only
covered things like Teams and process maps, and skipped the tools, or just
briefly mentioned them.
 
And once again, I agree that the allocation of resources combined with the
concern on measuring financial impact is the secret to the success of Six Sigma.
Having a good number of people attempting to promote wide-spread use of
statistics, even if the application is weak, is very powerful (in the short
term). 70% everywhere is better than 98% randomly focused. (Unless of course,
that focus is on constraint or leverage points in the system, but that is a
different discussion)			
========================================================================