Tom -

I've got a fair number of years having this sort of jiggery-pokery pushed on me (and doing a small bit of the pushing, myself). I was around with ISO9000 and EDS. I saw the IBM version of LEAN (which, we were told, was the offspring of LSS and SS, but didn't really seem to be). I got burned out, and now I just regard anything of that genre (ITIL, anyone?) as the flavor of the month with its own secret chants, gurus, and (thank you, Dilbert) Big Honkin' Binders.

I offer this: Work backwards from what you want (cheaper? faster? less complaints?) to determine your goals for the production process. Keep those goals simple and clear. (Ever see the 'how to build a pizza' chart over the Pizza Hut build station? Like that.) Fund training for people who want this process to work, so that they understand, not just apply. Keep control of how the production process is evaluated at the lowest levels. Don't worry about doing it the same way across the corporation.

And keep the binders small enough to read - and make sure that they are.

We have been closely involved in a process improvement project in Africa for a leading international brewery group. The project focus was to standardise processes across a number of breweries across the region based on industry best practise. This involved a re-engineering effort undertaken by process specialists (in this case consulting industrial engineers) and the implementation of these process improvement in both the ERP system as well as the deployment of a Business Process Management Suite (BPMS) to handle the unique process requirements and controls not supported by the ERP.

The BPMS provides a IT based process environment that supports your view on changing processes and the IT infrastructure that supports it.

The objective of the process change is not only to define new ways of work but to enforce the changes to ensure that it happens repeatedly and consistently to deliver the value from these process changes. Methodologies like Six Sigma provides some guidance on how to approach process challenges but it not necessarily the whole solution. It provides the supporting environment for real process change.

Hi Tom,

I too dislike zealots of any type -- even those of the six sigma variety. I do think that those industries that are process intensive and have high marginal value in their products -- so process yield creates tremendous value -- need to continually drive improved processes. Mike Porter in an updated version of his Competitive Strategy article in this month's HBR special issue on leadership shows that two of the best performing industries on Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) are securities firms and manufacturers of microprocessors -- both are well above the industry average for ROIC which if memory serves was about 14%.

These two industries illustrate your point. I would argue that six sigma is not the key to making securities firms more profitable. It was Lloyd C. Blankfein, CEO of Goldman, who told his traders to get out of the mortgage market, while John Mack at Morgan was telling them to go long -- which made the multi-billion dollar difference between the recent performance of those two firms. Six sigma would not have helped. You have written before about how the productivity of service work is tied to how the work is organized as much as anything else. And Blankfein -- as a trader -- saw the risk problem coming and set his organization on the right path.

At the same time, Intel, due to the huge value of slight increases in yield and the value of marginal production -- in the creation of chips (one pundit once pointed out that integrated circuits sell at over $40,000 a pound!)-- six sigma is vital -- as you note.

So I agree that leaders should be pantheists, yet for some industries some gods are "required" and others less important. The Greeks had a very deep relationship with Poseidon because the sea was so central to their peninsula-country. Likewise, those firms that have high marginal value on quality production should be more black belt than anyone!

I read your Process Innovation book over 10 years ago, and it seems like it could now do with a re-issue. The companies that implemented ERP often did not really understand what they should do until they looked back and saw their mistakes.
I have been involved with various ERP products - JD Edwards, Microsoft Dynamics, SYSPRO - and every implementation seems to be a new learning process for the companies concerned.

I like everybody's comments so far. I've been expecting some enraged Six Sigma devotees to chime in, but nothing yet. Bill's is refreshingly pragmatic. I love the "how to build a pizza" process model! If you read Atul Gawande's piece in a recent New Yorker, he's saying the same thing about health care processes. Pieter points out the ways that IT can reinforce process designs. John has some (as usual) thoughtful examples of where process diligence works, and where it might not (Blankfein's good decision-making at Goldman encourages me to think that other firms like it will examine their decision processes). And Simon, I'm glad you liked "Process Innovation," but it would have been a better book if it had less to say about reengineering, and more about process improvement and management in general.

Paul Harmon's new version of his book "Business Process Change" is a good, solid read on the relationships between IT and processes. And Andrew Spanyi's book "More for Less" is a good illustration of the objectives-driven approach that Bill argues for.

Hi Tom

I'd like to suggest that the 'sixth issue' with the Six Sigma approach is it's project orientation. This remains an issue with a project approach to process improvement.

The project framework has several negative connotations. There is always a sense that 'this is just a project' with never enough time allocated to transform the new practices into 'business as usual'. Change is mostly not sustained.

A framework of process management would encourage changes in management discipline and practice and provide an environment for effective, sustainable process improvement.

As any powerful tool, Six Sigma has huge number of advantages and quite a few limitations. Six Sigma definitely is a set of breakthrough tools and techniques, which lot of companies have used to gain significant process improvements. Six Sigma is a statistical view of a process, so measuring the current state and improvements becomes easier and number-oriented (and hence management buy-in). Six sigma is easier to apply in certain areas, such as manufacturing, than a few areas such as human resources and consulting services. But Six sigma should not be seen as a panacea to all process ailments. If we view it as a set of tools and techniques, applied along with other complementary knowledge domains such as IT, Project Management, and TQM then huge benefits can be raked. Six Sigma would just do fine in resolving the right kind of problem, if used correctly. It should be used as a management tool, such as an MBO or a BSC, being fully aware of what is the problem and what is the right tool to be used.

I have also undergone through the hum drum of Six Sigma, ERP, TQM, ISO, etc.

But what I found that these different management innovations being applied to the organisation without giving thought to the problems and to the proper selection of management innovation to be used.

This results in waste of resources and less than satisfactory end benefit observed in the organisation compared to what is promised.

Six Sigma. Ok so I can lower my cost, become more efficient, and better predict my supply chain. Now what? Do I sell the same product indefinitely or is there a product cycle in the market also bearing down on the process. CEO's look out, because in order for Six Sigma to work you need to sponsor it and dedicate time. What are your plans to understand the competitive market landscape products and services you must push through this improved six sigma process.

Unless your competitive strategy is price, most all other process improvements that have been around work. Or I would not be writing this message on my Apple Computer, to traverse down an internet pipe that has been built by companies who didn't leverage six sigma to deliver its products to the market.

Speaking of Motorola, anyone know what their cheapest, less expensive, featureless mobile phone is, because Nokia Samsung, and Apple have some nice ones in the market but you will have to wait for the six sigma model.....

Six Sigma. Ok so I can lower my cost, become more efficient, and better predict my supply chain. Now what? Do I sell the same product indefinitely or is there a product cycle in the market also bearing down on the process. CEO's look out, because in order for Six Sigma to work you need to sponsor it and dedicate time. What are your plans to understand the competitive market landscape products and services you must push through this improved six sigma process.

Unless your competitive strategy is price, most all other process improvements that have been around work. Or I would not be writing this message on my Apple Computer, to traverse down an internet pipe that has been built by companies who didn't leverage six sigma to deliver its products to the market.

Speaking of Motorola, anyone know what their cheapest, less expensive, featureless mobile phone is, because Nokia Samsung, and Apple have some nice ones in the market but you will have to wait for the six sigma model.....

Hi Tom

Your commentary provided all of the right comments on why a "program" of Six Sigma is not the pancea for everything that ails an organization. However, where I take distinction is the fact that it doesn't apply outside the industry/production model of business. The "program" of six sigma doesn't apply to any organizational problems, because over the long term a program will not work.

However, much like your model on analytical competitors an organization slowly encompasses the methodlogy of issue based problem solving and leverages that method as part of their culture in addressing the problems. As to your comments about "specialist" within the doman of Six Sigma, even in your model of Analytical Competitors you indicate that you have experts who then inflitrate the organization and train others to come along, and once the CULTURE has changed the organization has evolved to be an Analytical Competitor. Those specialist bring to bear the tools of Lean and Six Sigma. Rarely today do you find a "Six Sigma" program where the focus is only on customer defined defects and there is no work in the area of lean (waste reduction).

Furthermore, The challenge with any Change Program is lack of resources and competing priorities. You indicated your comments that Six Sigma, or any of those programs don't account for the IT Approach to the problem solving, a well defined Six Sigma program will be used as part of enterprise management and will in fact encompass those necessary IT strategic initiative and redesign. There is an entire area of design for six sigma that adddresses these area.

One of your comments is that re-engineering was one of the better programs because it allowed you to start back from scratch and leverage IT re-design, Lean Six Sigma programs have the same sort of things, but they don't start from scratch they start with the Voice of the Customer, and link their needs and requirements, current and future, to the service design element.

At this point, you are probably thinking I am a ZEALOT of Six Sigma, and do statistics in my sleep. I am not, I am in fact a fan of Enterprise Performance Management and Lean Six Sigma is a way of achieving that. Where once, the leadership has set the agenda you can drive the change into the organization through projects and incorporation of the supporting mechanism. If you ask a Black Belt or Green Belt, when is your project done, they will tell you when it is in Control, and has been handed back to the business team for day to day operations, back to their sponsor.

In conclusion, there is quite a bit of misunderstanding about Lean Six Sigma programs and what it means to have one implemented, much like your maturity model for scales of analytical competiton, the same holds true for six sigma programs. Would we say your method failed if all that ever achieved was a level 2 organization? I would challenge you to contact the Experts in Lean Six Sigma Programs in the Field, the expert program leads that are operating at the highest level of Lean Six Sigma Maturity (Enterprise Performance Management) and determine if your views remain the same.

Tom,

I think you make some good points, though conveniently describe Six Sigma in some fairly general (and inaccurate terms).

At it's simplest form, Six Sigma is about reducing variation of inputs and outputs, to achieve lower defects and meet customer specifications. Statistics are used to ensure that improvement decisions are based on measurable facts, rather than opinions.

To say that Six Sigma ignores Information Technology is flat out incorrect. There are thousands of examples of successful Six Sigma projects involving IT. What we preach in Lean Six Sigma is not to automate a broken process. Use Lean Six Sigma to correct the process first, then apply technology, often to springboard to new capabilities. In my experience as a technology implementor, many of the problems I encountered would have been avoided had Lean and Six Sigma been applied to the product creation and implementation process. Too often the tech people ignore the fact that business process change has to be part of the picture.

To say that there aren't tools to enable breakthrough improvement or innovation is also wrong. Design For Six Sigma has a host of tools and philosophies that are able to do just what you discuss.

Lastly, your example of Pizza Hut's "how to make a pizza" is Lean 101. Standardized work, with error-proofing measures and visual aids.

Many companies have botched the implementation of Lean, Six Sigma, ITIL, TQM, etc., only to blame the methodology for the failure to achieve results.

As Deming said, management is responsible for 80% of the problem. Where Lean and Six Sigma fail is when management does not use good data to make decisions, does not create a culture of excellence and collaboration, and treats Lean Six Sigma as a band-aid to cut costs quickly, and get short term results. Any toolset implemented under such conditions would meet a similar fate - and many have.

Hello Tom,

I have embarked on this path which is into Six Sigma. One of my ex-collegue is upon Business Process Re-engineering in some other company. But, what we both found is that both of the approaches go hand in hand. He was required to use SS in some of his work & develop a project. Till date SS has been the CORE for him in BPR.

At times, when it comes to innovation SS may in some cases not help you come up with ideas, but will definately help in transforming idea's to a break through achievement which will be definately better than the initial objective.

We need to remember that SS is not a tool but a methodoloy for process improvement.

I do not support your say on SS not linked to IT. I have come from an ITES background where IT is the backbone. Whenever we had any process improvements, IT was & is always involved. In the matters of designing sofftwares you can use D-IDOV-M approach from SS to develop better softwares too. If someone has the use of IT in his industry & when using any tool or methodology if disregards IT then, it is the overlook of the people driving it & not the failure of the methodolgy or tool. It cannot be the fault of the methodology, as it will always tell you the dependents of the process & the ancillary activities.

Anyways, I too am not so fond of the statistical mumbo-jumbo. But in any environment & industry, data & figures will speak better than anything. And if there is a methodology which can interprete such numbers & data into some concrete plan for improvement, it becomes very irresistable for the Management. But yes, SS does have some limitations which one should recognise & try to work around the strengths of the methodology.

I would agree with Deming's view point that most of Lean ,Lean Six Sigma , and Six sigma implementations are a function of the commitment of the Top management to sustain the initiative and help cascade the thought processes across the organisation.

It is also a function of other organizational process initiatives such as IT systems and ERP implementations being defined correctly so as to get he best match of process and improvement methodologies

Tapas

Tom makes some interesting points, but misses the most obvious. No approach works when Leadership does not clearly communicate a coherent strategy to masses and then own the implementation of that strategy. It's like the old matra "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear" only it is "when the leader owns the implementation, the appropriate tools will appear".

Tom fails to note the most SAP implementations fail because it is only the automation of crappy processes.

Six sigma, a significant tool for Quality enhancement, has over the last decade gained a colossal reputation and all companies in the world today are in the pursuit of getting their core and non-core competencies to a Six sigma level of performance. Such popularity cannot, of course be based on hearsay or assumptions. Being adopted by corporations like GE, Allied Motors, the substance of Six Sigma cannot be undermined.
The aforesaid opinion has been given by a novice like me. Definitely an influential individual like Tom Davenport, would have access to more statistical data which essentially would be confirmation enough of the successful expanse of Six sigma. The points referred to by Mr. Davenport, can easily be refuted by the knowledge that I have, which modestly is quite at the threshold of the learnings that can be adapted from the application of this quality tool. For instance:
As stated by Mr. Davenport, a Six sigma proceeding entails the expertise of the elite team of Black Belts, however he disregards the fact that the inception of such a project stems from Green Belt projects which have individuals representing the very process in which the gap exists. So it is all encompassing, straight from grass root.
Furthermore, Six sigma undeniably involves innovation. The models, around which processes function for years, often undergo substantial wear and tear in the essence of its relevance and may render redundant. This leads to a dip in quality. To bring up the level of productivity or service, newer models have to be envisioned, which not only, necessitate the want for innovation but an extensive deal of brainstorming as well.
Signing off, would just like to impress on the fact as noted by Dr. Mikel Harry, that Six sigma now moves into it’s fourth generation of existence and is forging ahead while inculcating in it’s progress the upcoming and existing process improvement ideas and techniques as it is not merely a “Quality tool but rather a Management System”.

Gee - this is so hard and the debate so enticing.

Business Improvement and Six Sigam get a rubbish reputation from leaders and employees who are happy to take second, third and fourth best - not because it is flawed. Over time we have accepted poor records, long waiting times, rude service and so much of our daily (working) life expended on useless tasks that no one remembers the origin of - like signing loan applications when banks no longer have the abilty to check them in neat little blue lighted machines.

The mocking tone of middle management is 'fat' and cloying even in th responses. Business is all about trade and providing goods and services that meet the needs of the market better than the other participants (Check your Porters).

The commentary of people who describe Six Sigma as 'humm drum' that is so often observed, are those folk who will never understand the essence of it. Those who cannot straddle the breadth of business and can see the required change and personally no longer possess the real abilty to influence others to just do better. Little wonder they see Six Sigma and its cousins as threatening. KANO, Hawthorn, null hypothesis testing has (and does) strike concern in all folk who have built their career on the crest of the 90's domination of others in the workplace mentality and hate it when we hold up a score card that clearly says:

You forget your customer then you will fail ....

And yes, I am a Black Belt - who also happens to be a CEO.

Regards,

Marina Pullin.

What an amazing blog from Mr. Davenport. One thing is clear. His experience with LSS is "removed" at best.
1. The point of the mumbo-jumbo is to make decisions based on data and not opinions. Simple as that. My background is microwave engineering and technical management. My experience goes back to Quality Circles at Rockwell too many decades ago. The thing I never liked about the other approaches was using some experts opinion about something. LSS measures the process and uses the data to make decisions. At NG we track the process improvements based on this data for up to 2 years (depending on the amount of data available)to make sure the change is incorporated into the culture.
2. Most of the teams I am familiar with at Northrop Grumman end up creating a new SW tool to either track data or improve a process. The use of information technology is critical to this work.
3. We have trained over 40% of employees at our site. While the BB is a leader, there is nothing elitist about it. The team leader and his project team do the work. The BB helps, encourages, trains and reports progress. Inserting an elitist attitude into the LSS process is unthinkable. Remember what I said, decision based on data, not opinions. Also, the BB rotates to other jobs after 2 years.
4. DMADV teams make breakthrough changes and improvements. Agreed there are far fewer DMADV teams and other techniques may work better depending on the industry and many other factors.
5. We have made many improvements to our front end processes (HW, SW, I&T) using LSS. We don't design products using LSS but many of the supporting processes have been optimized by LSS teams. I think this is an area that may change in the future as more companies use LSS concepts to accelerate the development process. How? By eliminating errors up front through better planning based on FMEA and other LSS tools.
6.Project orientation... This is the really strong part of LSS. Teams prepare schedules, do risk analysis, budget their money as a project team. Employees that have been on LSS teams get a lot of project management training for free.

My opinions... I hate to see LSS criticized in such broad strokes. LSS is the culmination of 50 years of trial and effort by other process improvement approaches. Yes, I am a BB.
Kirby

Hey Marina and Kirby what an awesome review. You guyz definitely are Leaders with a backbone. I'm so impessed with Marina's views that couldn't resist writing this note. Fantabulous!!!

This discussion is so compelling that I must chime in. If Six Sigma is on the downslope, what's the "next big thing" - a system program, methodology, technique (you name it) that (1) has no statistical mumbo-jumbo, (2) incorporates information technology, (3) is not overly elitist, (4)enables radical breakthroughs and (5) is a good fit for innovation-oriented work?
As we've found in the past from other management innovation/-improvement programs without data (the basis of statistics), the only output you get is a "feel good attitude" in the workforce. The veiled part of such a program is that after the "feel good" is gone, there's still work to be done and problems to be corrected that depend on the data (which, by the way, gets interpreted through statistics).
Information, and information technology is also based on data. The thread is data - facts - information - knowledge. Someone must translate data into facts, add time and you have information, apply it to human capabilities and you have knowledge. What remains is that information technology is based on data, as is Six Sigma.
Taking what has been said before, let's address the elitist claim. To me, there's no one more elitist than some IT people! Others are very accommodating of business processes, however. Some have the "we know what's best for you" attitude in nearly everything. For example, who the hell ever told IT people that I wanted or needed a login name and password every time I enter certain IT systems?! Who told them I wanted my IT system to accept cookies that record my preferences when I visit certain websites!?! Am I not a unique thinking individual that makes choices based on the way I feel at the moment!?!? Lastly, don't get me started on Help Desk IT elitism!!! It spawned the creation of companies like the damned Geek Troops!, little back room nerds that would barely make minimum wage except for the protected elitism that drove the development of IT systems. Enough of that, I'm getting hot under the collar thinking about it!!! A Black Belt or Green Belt that must work with others in the organization, process owners and champions cannot afford to be elitist; if they are, they'll fail.
Enabling radical breakthroughs? Let me address this by example. Many people in the nation want a “clean environment”; they want to minimize the adverse effects of automobile emissions. Granted that politics, market strategies and profit also play a part, but Honda has produced both a compressed natural gas and a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, yet you don’t see a huge number of US citizens driving either fuel-cell or natural gas vehicles to meet their personal transportation needs. Why is that? Fuel celled vehicles represent breakthrough technology compared to fossil-fueled vehicles. I contend that if the majority of the US automakers had listened to the Voice of the Customer, we wouldn’t have this concern about a clean environment and inclusion of environmentally friendly vehicles – we’d have them in mass quantities already. Do you think Honda has neglected to use some form of Six Sigma? Tools to capture the voice of the customer/-customer concerns and produce radical breakthroughs are deeply imbedded in Lean Six Sigma.
Innovation-oriented work. I suppose tools like brainstorming; six thinking hats, etc. are simply targeted at solving current problems, making the next logical step, i.e., not enabling innovation. If they are, businesses should stop using them; stop holding seminars, conferences and focus groups to spur innovation, stop taking what the customer has said and translating it into product and process innovation. By the way, brainstorming, KANO analysis, etc. are also integral components of Lean Six Sigma.

If Six Sigma is on the downslope, what’s the next big thing that does not have all of its so-called “shortcomings”?

This discussion provides some confirmation for a hypothesis of mine: that these process management "movements" are so protean as to defy categorization. Six Sigma, or Lean Six Sigma if you prefer, includes anything its partisans want it to include. There is no official definition of what tools are contained in what methodologies. So why not go further and develop an all-encompassing process management toolbox incorporating issues-based problem-solving, the use of data and analysis, approaches for incremental and breakthrough innovation, the use of IT to enable process change, etc., etc.? Let's just call this new religion "process management."

Thanks for all the passionate comments!

Tom's last comment is great...what does Lean Six Sigma include? This takes me back to my training by Deming Prize Committee consultants from Japan in the 1980's. They called it Company Wide Quality Control (at least that's what it was called in English). Their wholistic approach included Hoshin Kanri for breakthrough planning, JIT (now called Lean), KANBAN, SPC (Statistical Process Control), QFD (Quality Funciton Deployment which links to Design for Lean Six Sigma), Nichijo Kanri (found in the U.S. as Daily Management Boards), T-type matrix (shows where problems occur in a process, where they were found in the process & where they could have been found and fixed...Dr. Kano 1984). As Sam said earlier...it's about culture change & the others who talk to leadership support. After 10 years of mining data from SAP to improve processes I find that IT people "just don't get it" from their ivory tower. They need to get out and try to understand processes. This is where Tom's comment on statistical mumbo-jumbo comes in. IT people want to create an elegant report from data cubes with "drill-down" and 3-D charts...that's cool, but where's the analysis?...oops! That must be the statistical mumbo-jumbo that allows for real decision support information for management. Read "Competing on Analytics"...great book. Give me data to analyze, not reports.

Jim Duarte

Whether it is Six Sigma, ISO 9000, or Net Promoter Score, we run into the same issues every couple of years. As always, it depends on what you are measuring. It's easy to for line experts and managers to throw a process or solution at whatever problem they face currently, but doing so is a terrible mistake. There is no "one size fits all" approach that can work in any situation. Each problem requires careful analysis since each company and each issue is unique. In order to end up with the solution that exactly meets the company’s needs, we need to resist the hype surrounding the latest solution and carefully assess the larger issues surrounding the problem. We need to define the problem in a surgical manner. It’s critical to look into the interactions and effects our solutions may have on other parts of the organization. We need to assess what outcomes are likely. Only then can we begin to think about systems of measuring and improving quality.

What Tom writes is pretty much the same argument used against ISO, TQM, LEAN, etc. What isn't said is what Dr. Phil said when speaking to a man who wason his third failed marriage. "what is the common element in all three mariages? You!" What am I trying to say? The problems isn't the system, the problem is people.

The only true way to achieve success is to change the culture in a company from that of "good enough" to "we can do better". This is why Walmart employees have daily stand up meetings that include the company indoctrination song/chant. The real way to improve quality, is not by using some system, it is by getting people to care about what they do. And yes i work at a company that does Six Sigma consulting and training.

I am a former business manager who has returned to education. I use many of the techniques I picked up in the business world to improve my teaching. Like business, education has its gurus who have all the answers. Each has the theory that he/she espouses.
I find that the solution usually requires every organization to look at the theory, experiment with it, and if they are going to succeed, shape it to fit their particular circumstances. The best solutions to most issues in life period is to develop a hybrid that fits the precise requirements of the people using it. Whether it is GE, Motorola, Toyota, USD#445, or my classroom, the situation is unique. Choose the elements that work, experiment with other solutions for those that don't work, and come up with a system that is unique for your organization. How do you acquire that system? Introduce techniques, start conversations with the your own people, listen to what comes out of the conversations, and customize the theory to fit your needs.
Good principles usually work everywhere, but what the product looks like, and the principles that power it best vary. In the end, combining principles and styles to uniquely fit the strengths and weaknesses of your organization is ALWAYS the key to making any project a success. Your people already have the answers to most of the problems you deal with......their conversations, and the degree of respect those responses are given will be the key to unlocking the unique combination that work for you. Conversations must be constantly going on, and everyone should be open to change, but at the same time, you must be careful what you scrap. Conversations will let you keep the best of what you have and mold it into an innovative approach that will continue to let you compete well.

HI, Tom
After reading dozen pages of Six Sigma Handbook I was tired and then google 'why six sigma fail'. Your article appeared in the second (or third) place.

I am studying Six Sigma Black Belt now, but I do not particular fond of it. One of my motivations to enroll the programme is about learning what does Six Sigma means. This is a great challenge to me since I hate and scare of math.

Make it short, when I learnt (read) that Six Sigma from my instructor as well as reading a book that Balance Scorecard has been included as a tool and Six Sigma is a strategy, I feel uncomfortable. Simply I think it is too 'aggressive' and I do not think Six Sigma is a strategic management in nature.

Of course, any concept or methodology could be evolved. Yet, I am afraid this time the 'evolution' has gone beyond the original focus. Or, I am afraid some 'experts' just purposely make Six Sigma high-sounding. This may kill this beautiful methodology (I would think Six Sigma is a methodology).

Without doubt, math is important, and statistics can really help spot the problem and make reasonable inference. This is nothing wrong with the rigorous approach to solve problem. But, it is not a panacea. With my little knowledge of Six Sigma, I could not state how different of it from other scientific management approaches that have been advocated. It is different not not to the level of 'breakthrough' to Edward Deming's approach/method. Indeed, I think Mr. Deming would be more rich in management philosophy.

I will not blame Six Sigma is not applicable for innovation. After all, it is not developed for this purpose. Could we blame SWOT, PET, Five-force, etc. fail to make strategic alignment? No. of course not, they are not developed for that purpose. You may borrow any tool for your particular purpose but don't blame its 'shortcoming'. Instead, we should only blame those who have force the tool to functioning in other discipline.

Last, I like your idea, be a pantheists in practice. But for discussion, we'd better recall the origin of subject. Your points should be read by the die-harder of Six Sigma

I think John Funk's comments have the most relevance here. Do not do Lean, TQM, CI, Six Sigma, BPMN, SCOR, etc.....Do business Improvement - and in this the only true model of optimal business improvement is that there cannot be one only model.

Business benefits from an improvement only happen when a change is made, not when people argue about the method.

Focus on improving 1 degree everywhere every day in your business and maintain complete drive and focus towards that and I figure you'll be more successful than most. If this means LSS use it, if not then don't.

Remembering the core principles too helps - customer AND business centricity, reduced variation against these, reduced waste/NVA, pareto principle, mistake proofing, control, fact based decisions, leadership accountability, MSA, automation, group participation.

I like six sigma. Infact, we took the parts of many methodologies to develope a custom process improvement program. We utilize six sigma just as an overall framework to follow, and the other methodologies (or pices of them) then become the tools used to execute.

Hi Tom,

I do not agree with your comments.

Six Sigma actually helps you to identify the problems what your customer , your management or your employees are finding.

It will than try to identify the the solutions and the solution can be developing a software.

For developing any software you should have a goal, you cannot blindly go and develop any software for improvements and this goal can be provided by six sigma, six sigma uses mathematical or statistical tools to identify problems and solutions and solutions could be using IT for improvements

Thanks
Prashant Singh