Supply Excellence
← London Calling: See Supply Management 2.0 in Action Stockholm: Supply Management Nordic Style →

The Illusion of Six Sigma

April 19th, 2007 · by Tim Minahan · 3 Comments · supply management

Today, I’d like to welcome a guest blogger to Supply Excellence. Jeffrey Wincel is a Principal at LSC Consulting Group. Jeffrey founded LSC Consulting Group in 2001. He has over 20 years of senior level and executive management experience in developing and deploying strategic supply chain initiatives. His company focuses on integrating lean production methodologies with total supply chain management.

I thought for my first posting, I’d write about a topic that is sure to aggravate many Supply Excellence blog readers; that being the illusion of six-sigma. Since the late 1990’s any discussion about corporate process and productivity improvement has included the almost religious zeal of six sigma programs. Jack Welch was able to transform his image through six sigma, going from “Neutron Jack” (the slash and burn corporate take over king) to the genius of GE. Careers and fortunes have been built on the six sigma bandwagon. But for all its fanfare and support, six sigma is an illusion of sustained improvement. In its latest incarnation, there is now “lean six sigma.” But before I totally lose you, let me take a step back at what six sigma was, and what it has become.

When six sigma was first introduced (by Motorola and HP), its purpose was to develop product designs capable of producing 6σ quality level within existing manufacturing technologies. The idea was to design for quality (3.4 ppm), not hope to inspect it out after manufacturing. Its focus was on part specification, production capability, and the relationship between the two. Then in the 1990s in an effort to legitimize the brutal approach Welch was practicing at GE, he adopted the six sigma methodology and transformed it into what it has become today. Six sigma became an event-defined cost reduction initiative, no different that the PICOS process GM tried in the late 80s and early 90s. Outside of the event-defined expectation of the individual six sigma activity, there was no view of sustainability or integration with daily operating disciplines. To give it an air of legitimacy and to tie it to the integrated improvements that Japanese manufacturers were exhibiting, the green belt, black belt, master black belt concept was created. However, the only potential link to Japanese style manufacturing disciplines would be isolated kaizen events.

Ultimately this lack of integration has become more evident to the many companies who utilize this tool. The “Lean Six Sigma” movement is a response to this concern. But it is a response which is really not needed, as traditional lean manufacturing techniques and processes already include the disciplines contained in six sigma. Lean manufacturing includes not only the production disciplines of standardized work, rapid changeover, total productive maintenance (TPM), etc.; but also enterprise wide management reporting (Hoshin planning), and continuous improvement (kaizen). Unlike six sigma, where a few months of training can make you a black belt or master black belt, lean approaches depend on the adoption of an integrative lean philosophy as a basis for business, with expertise developing with time and experience. Although many elements of a lean system can be quickly implemented and drive improvement, mastery of it often comes over many years. A lean master truly is a master of the sustained systems and improvements that are evidenced in the world’s leading companies.

The philosophical basis of lean as part of the identity of a company, exemplified by its long-term and sustained improvements, is what distinguishes it from six sigma. My professional career has included working for companies which employed the “gimmick” programs such as PICOS, 6σ, and even independent kaizen events. However, it was only those companies who embraced lean that showed continual and sustained improvement. It was for this reason, that I too embraced lean as part of my supply chain efforts. “Lean Supply Chain Management” derives its meaning from the disciplines of lean. Conversely, if six sigma were a robust practice on its own, why would there need to be “Lean Six Sigma?”

Email Forward & Bookmarks
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Email] More »

Tags:

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Mark Usher // Apr 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    As someone who experienced the myopic short-term focus of Welch’s strategies from within (with the Aircraft Engines group) I could not agree more with Jeffrey’s observations. Welch seized on the 6 sigma methodology being applied so appropriately to the product & process design world to brand his own set of quarterly earnings-focused initiatives. These included programs such as “Get it Right First Time” and “Work-Out”, both examples of initiatives aimed at driving immediate cost reduction with little or no attention to total value creation or sustainability. Any re-appraisal of such flawed philosophies and strategies is, in my opinion, completely valid and long overdue.

  • 2 Supply Excellence » To Share or Not To Share // Apr 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    [...] Due to the positive response we received from Jeffrey Wincel’s post, The Illusion of Six-Sigma, we have invited him back as a guest blogger. In this post, Jeffrey, principal at LSC Consulting Group, tackles the issue of evaluating cost drivers within a company’s supply chain. [...]

  • 3 Supply Excellence » Supply Excellence: Best Contributions of 2007 // Dec 28, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    [...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]

Leave a Comment