Six Sigma Verses Process Capability

Gives CEOs something to brag about on the golf course?

GA

I really should read through these... Saves me time typing.

Pretty much, I concur with the sentiments others including you have already expressed here on this topic.

Clear that a company that is producing X% or reject machines, parts, widgets, etc. that do not function, and Y% that fail not long after going out the door, has a QC problem, and if not that, it clearly is a design problem (of the fabrication if not the design itself). That only applies if X and Y are unacceptably large numbers to the folks who want to set goals for the company that are consistent with continued operations.

Six Sigma if it's just being introduced to a company and implemented, it has to be accepted in the companies culture.

And the biggest problem is the people and managers of the company, even thou they openly, publicly and enthusiastically rejoice over what a great program 6 sigma is, In private, they don't want change and are the biggest road blocks.

It doesn't matter what process it is, Whether it's 6S, 5S, KanBan (inventory) Quality Circle, Kaisan, whatever. It has to be accepted and it has to be genuine. Otherwise failure is assured.

Also, some of these programs may not be suited for the company. The biggest successes I've seen with Six Sigma is in with the insurance company's. Where a lot of the managers are black belts.

It just seems like when they talk about 6-sigma stuff, it just sounds like 'common sense' to me. I never quite figured out what the big deal was.

I find it very boring.... Probably because of the struggle I see within the company trying to implement it.

The hot job 5-10 years ago, was the person who was black belt certified in 6S. I don't see it as prevalent now.

No man, the real money job is the guru that issues the black belts. Not sure how many executive golf tourneys = black belt, but I am sure it is proportional to that, and also how many rounds are purchased at the local "strip" mall (euphemism alert).

The bottom line is that somehow productivity is supposed to blossom from this, but I have my doubts. Just another excuse for that "boring" statistics course in college.

The real deal is nobody wants to sit around figuring out the propagation of errors treatment of making some part, whether it is additive manufactured, machined (subtractive manufacturing), printed, injection molded, or otherwise carved by Pacific island natives. They do want the part to function, to fit in its place, and to be dirt cheap (to make).

With that said,.... Nope,.... it still bores the heck out of me.

Then you did your homework, nice job. The key part is knowing machine capability, and how to apply that to the specs on the part in production. 3 rejects in that time span indicates someone knew their stuff.

Good answer. Of the engineers and managers I worked with, very few had a clue as to the "capability" except in terms of parts per hour. Only on one project have I been allowed to establish that a certain process could not meet the required capability simply due to the design of the mechanism. A new approach made it much easier to meet the requirements, but it required substantial retooling. While that was very unpopular, it worked because we re-started with the capability in mind.

Like they say, always enough time to do it over!

I agree with lyn, in my experience most of managers trying to apply six sigma or lean six sigma don't understand about the capacity of the processes in their own factories or companies to generate quality, and no where near about the technics or technology being used, usually because they have no connection to the technic. Most of them try to get better results acting in the business processes, say doing things better, at commercial level, customer relation, etc, but getting better quality capacity needs to go inside the nature of processes and technology. There is something that happens to most of us when we don't understand or know about something, we tend to leave it apart, and that is what a lot of managers whose natural field is not technical or engineering do, although a few reach success getting the right people to take care about that fields.

This reason is one of the main reasons why about 40% or more of lean six sigma and six sigma projects fail, some others are to place an uncapable belt at the wrong place, etc. From my point of view there is a long way to go on improving the links between business and technical, technical with finance, etc.

One of the main clues in this contents is to apply science to processes, it is really an engineering nature question.

I agree that some black belts would be best applied at the neck level, rather than at the waist.

Sure Bayes, one of the purposes is getting the belly curve... it is stated as an objective itself, and for sure has to be Normal, if not....

Liked your post.

My opinion is that probably for manufacturing, it may be quite good, but I experienced it in the computer service industry, a complete disaster.....

Six Sigma, Kanban kaizen, all those are things I describe as 'Hiking up Mount Fuji⁽¹⁾.' There is only ONE path to hike up Mt. Fuji, YOUR path. It is what you learn on the journey that is important, not the final destination. You cannot ride a helicopter up Mt. Fuji⁽²⁾, for you will miss the journey, and in doing so the destination becomes meaningless. You cannot blindly follow someone else's footsteps to get up Mt. Fuji⁽³⁾, for THEY are not YOU, and THEIR path is not YOUR path. The only path that matters is YOUR OWN path, every stumble, every thorn, every chrysanthemum blossom, must be YOURS and YOURS alone for the journey to have meaning, and only then will you REALLY hike up Mt. Fuji⁽⁴⁾.

Notes

1. I use that analogy out of respect for the culture that gave us this Way, because it is a globally recognized mountain, and that it, unlike Everest, is a mountain where climbing it is something that is not considered impossible for 'non-mountaineers' to do.
2. i.e.: Hire a consultant to come in and 'give' you Six Sigma in a seminar, then walk away.
3. i.e.: Copy some other company's plan and try to use it without modification.
4. Notice that I do not mention 'reaching the peak' when doing it correctly. That is because Six Sigma isn't a 'one and done' project, it's a 'new business philosophy.' Even when you have gotten the best efficiency possible, you still need to do periodic reviews to keep from losing that efficiency due to complacency, shortcuts, and a slow 'abandonment' of 6Sig. In essence, once you start hiking up Mt. Fuji, you will ALWAYS be hiking up the mountain. The Journey is where one learns, the destination is just that, simply an end, a place where the Journey, the learning stops.
   

Apparently the journey begins with a very long spiral at the base of Mt. Fuji.

I prefer to pick the cherry blossoms looking for a perfect blossom.

You have to walk your path, but make sure what path you want to go. On the path to kaizen, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, or Six Sigma you can identify clearly several things, if not, you could be walking somewhere else.

If you think six sigma (and kaizen, and LEAN and Lean Six Sigma) is listening to someone, and then you go on your own, please ask another consultant.

I never said each path had to be unique every step of the way; just that, to be successful, each person needs to walk their own path, the path that is right for them. For some they might be walking along a path others have walked before, some may walk with others for part of the journey, some may look to the left and marvel at the patterns of the lichen on the mountainside, while others look right and see the countryside spread before them.

Bottom line, every company is different, every company culture is different. To make any new method, 6S, Lean, kaizen, or whatever, work with the company, they need to make it a part of the company culture, It's unlikely that any two companies will end up with the exact same 6S 'solutions' from A to Z. Each company needs to see what 'fits,' what doesn't, and what 'just needs a little tweaking' to fit, for THEM.