I lived through the indoctrination of 6σ at Motorola Govt plants in the 70's. It was not pleasant for some of us on the engineering side.

I agree with everything Guest said. 6Σ

But, I think 6σ is too much for what seems like a simple niche company.

You MUST give all your employees a tangible incentive to actively participate/buy-in of whatever philosophy you choose.

Six Sigma: So Yesterday?

I'm not sure when Kaizen became another name for common sense; probably about the time "Quality Experts" were able to convince management that it would be a good idea to copy Toyota. Six sigma? I've an idea, why not combine it with lean and let's call it lean six sigma? We should be able to sell that concept to corporation managements who wouldn't know their product if they sat on it.

ISO registration? Try and obtain an accurate cost/benefit analysis. Essentially, it simply means documenting what you do, doing what you document, and proving it to a third party. Every manufacturing company should be doing that anyway through their internal process and quality systems with the third party being the customer. In my experience, the major problem with ISO registration and auditing (besides the cost) is that the associated documentation can become the objective; all the documents are in order (as a result of near panic about a month before the scheduled annual audit) but lost may be the essence of what you are really trying to accomplish. In my opinion if any system doesn't enhance a company's ability to design, manufacture, sell and ship their product, it's counter productive and they shouldn't be doing it.

Quality systems in a manufacturing plant begin with a definition of a quality product and the one that makes the most sense to me is, "a product that meets or exceeds the customers' expectations." I think it is really that simple and if that is always the case with every unit of product shipped, it doesn't matter what system is used or how it is registered.

(Incidently, if our documented manufacturing objective is to produce 100% scrap, we could gain ISO registration, with payment of the appropriate fee).

There is no universal quality system that applies to all manufacturers or products. Although they all employ the same concepts, controls, measurements and statistics, they are unique. There are many text books, handbooks, software programs, guides, aids, etc. in establishing quality systems. One of the best I've found is titled, "The Memory Jogger, A Pocket Guide of Tools For Continuous Improvement", published by GOAL/QPC in Methuen, MA, USA.

I apologize in advance for the length and content of my response.

I agree with TCMT.

As one in Q dept for more than quarter century and then in manufacturing area, I am well aware of this phenomenon.

Even now, the amount of effort in doing an improvement seems to be less than the amount in generating the reports, presentation…

But then is it not true in all areas? Even the scientists are in the same boat, only their projects are of longer duration, so the months spent might not pinch.

The quality department as BS said, the emphasis is on the documents and not the result (that part I agree)

However I am not so negative about the usefulness of the tools.

ISO will accept and award the certificate to you even on 100% defective – but then you must have the objective of the 100% defective and it must align with your organizational goals.

As I mentioned earlier, the Quality Tools (misnomer) are strong, only if it is used judiciously. These are cure-all, but we are more likely to lick the outer layer of the medicine (the coloured part) and spit out the inner portion.

The strength lies in the concept of CFT (cross functional teams) that started with the QC amd now has matured into other techniques, but then again these have to be properly selected, implemented and documented. The document should be more for historical purposes (KMP) rather than for showing to management (unfortunately it is other way round)

I have seen our QCs working to fit in a tool when it is not necessary (and in certain cases I have seen that there was another tool for the activity) but then how do you make an impressive show without using more and more number of the 7 tools?

These tools sigma, Kaizen etc work to improve the quality of the product. We should understand that the basic aim is to reduce the wastages- that wastage may be deviations, rejections, time, unnecessary activities…

In the end as required – customer gets the product exceeding his expectations, at the cost below his estimate and delivered earlier than he expected.

The product physical quality, cost, deliveries etc all are interlinked and form the part of the total quality of product.

In fact there are a few good books on this aspect, I have gone through "what the customer really wants" that actually defines quality.

The advantage as I said, of the sigma or kaizen is that they bring in the team approaches and that uses multiple brains and common senses on a table and uses tools that are and when necessary.

BTW: common sense do not optimise, they only improve- and that also provided it is not from the top rung (where no improvement also is termed improvement), the correct spark arrived in the correct moment, there are no hindrances for the flow etc.

The team at least agrees broadly, and implementation of the activities are responsibility of the team rather than one person.

(a bit too long lecture ? )

I don´t know the reason to explain this question a long. Mr Ronkudirka, Yes six sigma is better than others in your case.

Each is different, and I feel you have to modify it to your company's model for the most efficient implication.

post #6 is great explanation

I worked at a company the stressed Enterprise Selling and a modified version of 5S they called it 6S. I was hired a consultant for a large contract of which I was included in the meetings which consisted of training once a week for an hour for key personnel (about 20) that consisted of Executives, Project managers, administration, engineers, and Shop Supervisors. This company was 100 employees, the investment was definitely there.

They said its was implemented, but could not figure out why they were having problems. I suggested that they should refine it, and put it in a way that these people should challenge it to improve the system.

You have to be careful and do not get complacent.

What I saw was they surrounded themselves with yes men, I would say women but one was only complacent, the other women challenged the weakness of the system and were promptly fired. And what I saw was these yes men were quick to write up corrective actions against people that were straightening out these yes men weaknesses, almost like a preemptive strike.

Yes I was written up a number of times, each time I was brought in front of the board, I brought my journal along, and each time the corrective action was thrown out.

Another company that was for 10 years ISO 9000 certified drop it all together. The reason, it did not add value.

p911

Almost a before or after.

good explanation

Hi Ronkdirka,

I worked for a company producing Hoists and Cranes. We had both Kaizan and 6 Sigma along with ISO. These are methods to achive quality control and cost reduction.Main purpose should be that you should have will to achive your goal. If it dies down after few years then it will not serve the purpose.

Suresh Sharma.

For what its worth, my impression is that no matter what you call, your target is to reduce "waste" to improve profit. Lean, Six Sigma, TPS etc all make use of the same pool of tools, which have been around for a long time.

Hi

I found that a member asked same question in this forum 4 month ago.

Pls use search box to find this questions.

Rgs