Thanks for your response. YEs lean Six Sigma is better, so I’m surpridsed that in addition to changing *the* to *a*, you didn’t also add *lean*.

perhaps becuase there are other approaches than lean that can make a difference — on Monday Rip Stauffer posted the following on the Deming Electronic Network in a thread titled “No Conflict Between Deming’s Ideas and Six Sigma”.
After reading Rip’s post I wonder how widely Lean Six Sigma is understood compared with the original.

Six Sigma is, unfortunately, often practiced by hundreds
of hacks out there whose only exposure to Quality was through Belt training
conducted at the point of a gun by another hack whose only exposure to
Quality was through Belt training conducted at the point of a gun, whose
only…etc. (Rule 4 of the Funnel is alive and well among many of these
folks!). I have been in serious discussions with some of these people who
have told me things such as: “Hidden factory is all the mistakes that the
line workers make and hide from management,”"The best measure of center for
a negatively-skewed data set is the 75th percentile,”and “Systems thinking?
What’s that? Why would anyone need that?” among other things. This Rule 4
has been exacerbated by the fact that Welch popularized Six Sigma as a
cost-cutting strategy. Now you can pick up any five books written about Six
Sigma and find that it’s about cutting costs, that it ignores the customer,
that it’s about quality, that it’s customer-focused…you name it, it’s
probably been written. Then you have ASQ trying to define a standard for Six
Sigma (thus leading many to believe that such a standard exists).
That doesn’t mean that Six Sigma itself is bad. The “Six Sigma metric
(process sigma)” is, in my view, fundamentally flawed (although I have found
DPMO to sometimes be useful in estimating overall defect levels by
aggregating the continuous and discrete measures together–as long as you
understand that it is just an estimate, and you base it on knowlede of
stable processes). The idea of putting together a project that focuses on
working to uncover key elements of the common cause system, so you can
improve performance in a process that is stable but not performing where it
should, is a sound one, I think. Having an improvement-focused project life
cycle (DMAIC) or methodology to help guide a team through that complex task
is OK with me, and we’ve been pretty successful with it. Trying to use the
project methodology by itself as your whole quality system won’t work, and
it certainly doesn’t seem to leave Six Sigma leaders with anything like
statistical thinking (witness Welch and his minions who adopted “Fire the
bottom 10 percent every year”).

Six Sigma can be practiced by Deming advocates. I think most people in the
DEN would recognize that I am pretty consistent and enthusiastic in
attempting to learn and expand the Deming Philosophy. So much so, in fact,
that I had some misgivings when I left the Navy a few years ago and went to
work for another long-time friend and follower of Dr. Deming’s, Lou Schultz,
as he was trying to put together his Six Sigma practice. Lou always looked
at Six Sigma as a vehicle for carrying Quality principles and the philosophy
to organizations. I think he was right…I’ve been able to show the Red Bead
and the Funnel and talk about SoPK with a lot of executives now under the
umbrella of Six Sigma training and coaching. I’ve had many people in
organizations, people who had never heard of Dr. Deming, get very interested
in the Deming Philosophy and Quality because of video tapes we showed and
discussions we led in Six Sigma classes.

Best regards to all,

Rip Stauffer
Woodside Quality Solutions LLC
612-916-0197

[Alan writes: for those unfamilar with Deming’s Funnel experiment (let alone rule 4) see WE Deming (1986) Out of the Crisis MIT Press pp 327-8, go to http://www.managementwisdom.com/funexvol9.html, look through the slides starting at http://www.shsu.edu/~mgt_ves/mgt481/lesson5/sld007.htm

In the funnel experiment the intention is to get a marble on to a target by dropping it through a funnel. The four rules are:
Rule 1. Leave the funnel alone
Rule 2. Move the funnel from wherever it is at in an equal but opposite direction from where the marble landed in relation to the target
Rule 3. Move the funnel back to its rest position before moving it in an equal but opposite direction from where the marble landed in relation to the target
Rule 4. Move the funnel over the last position of where the marble landed

What the experiment shows is that adjusting a stable process to try to compensate for variation creates a worse output than doing nothing at all.]

I don’t take exception to your criticisms of Six Sigma as a stand alone initiative. ‘Lean Six Sigma’ is becoming the accepted approach in the US for exactly why you criticize Six Sigma. And I’ll go one step further.

In our work with clients on their projects, we start with an assessment of the constraints to throughput to bring focus to the improving actions. This generally results in very fast paybacks on our efforts.

I’ll make the edit to the tip.

Hal

Mmmm. Six Sigma is *a* western response to attacking unevenness. possibly, but probably not.

Lean IS a western response. it flows from colt rifle via ford’s model t line, shewhart control charts, scientific method coupled with an understanding of variation, epistemology, systems and psychology. it includes the customer and the suppliers. it is inclusive rather than elitist.

OK so all these western elements were first put together in the tps.

It seems to me that Six Sigma improves everything - including the production of muda. it is a-systemic; it looks at every step in a pocess as if it produced value just like every other step. there is no value stream analysis, no deployment flowcharting. it is elitist and supports a command and control approach that does not sit well with collaboration.

That apart - must have been an aberation Hal - that appart I agree with everying you say. the faster you go the better it gets.