Six Sigma is a disciplined quality-control method that uses a data-driven review to limit mistakes

or defects in and process. The approach was developed in 1986 by Motorola. Six Sigma is
focused on cycle-time improvement. It also emphasizes time reducing manufacturing defects to
a level of no more than 3.4 occurrences per million units or events. Often Six Sigma simply
means a measure of quality that strives for perfection. Simply saying, Six Sigma is the way to
work faster with fewer mistakes.Six Sigma is one of the most important and popular
developments in the quality field. It has saved huge amounts of money and improved the
customer experience for a large number of organizations across the world, yet it is applied in
an inconsistent and often reductive fashion in many companies. There are those who will tell
you that Six Sigma is radical and new. The fact is that Six Sigma (done properly) is a
recognisable . Evolution of TQM. De Mast (2006) sees it as an on-going phase in the evolution
of methods and approaches for quality and efficiency improvement. Six Sigma can be seen as
the accumulation of principles and practices developed in management
statistics and quality engineering, all of which matured significantly over the course of the
Twentieth Century.Companies all over the world implement the method as a mental framework
for business process improvement and the ideology behind DMAIC direct businesses on solving
unsolvable problems by following specific steps:
1.First, a team of people led by a Six Sigma leader is formed. This team defines a faulty process
and everybody focuses on it, analyzing the company’s goals and requirements. It actually
outlines the problem, the project’s goals, and deliverables.
2.They measure the initial performance of the process and these statistical measures firm a list
of potential inputs that may cause the problem and help to understand the benchmark
performance.
3.After that, the team isolates each input or potential reason for the failure. They test it as the
root of the problem. This analysis helps to identify the error reason.
4.Then everybody starts working on improving system performance.
5.In order to ensure the process does not regress and become ineffective once again, the team
adds controls.
The Six Sigma approach was first developed in the late 1980s within a mass manufacturing
environment in Motorola (Harry,
1998) as they struggled to meet demanding quality targets on complex manufactured products;
and become widely known
when GE adopted it in the mid-90s (Folaron and Morgan, 2003; Thawani, 2004) when, arguably,
it evolved from being
a process improvement methodology to a broader, companywide philosophy. Both companies
still consider Six Sigma
as the basis for their on-going strategic improvement approach. Since the 1980s Six Sigma has
become one of the most
popular improvement initiatives; widely implemented around the world in a wide range of sectors
(by companies such
as Boeing, DuPont, Toshiba, Seagate, Allied Signal, Kodak, Honeywell, Texas Instruments,
Sony, Bombardier, Lockheed
Martin) that all declared considerable financial savings (Harry, 1998; Antony and Banuelas,
2001; Kwak and Anbari, 2006).
Other benefits claimed for Six Sigma include increased stock price, improved processes and
products quality, shorter cycle
times, improved design and increased customer satisfaction (Lee, 2002; McAdam et al, 2005).
Six Sigma has undergone a considerable evolution since the early manifestations (Folaron and
Morgan, 2003; Abramowich,
2005). Initially it was a quality measurement approach based on statistical principles. Then it
transformed to a disciplined
processes improvement technique (based on reducing variation within the system with the help
of a number of statistical
tools). For example, Snee (1999) defined Six Sigma as an ‘approach that seeks to find and
eliminate causes of mistakes
or defects in business processes by focusing on outputs that are critical importance to
customers’. The definition given
in 1999 by Harry and Schroeder (1999) also defines Six Sigma as ‘a disciplined method of using
extremely rigorous data
gathering and statistical analysis to pinpoint sources of errors and ways of eliminating them’.
In its current incarnation it is commonly presented as ‘a breakthrough strategy’ and even holistic
quality philosophy
(Pande, 2002; Eckes, 2001). It is now generally accepted that Six Sigma is applicable to various
environments such as
service, transactions or software industry regardless the size of the business (Pande, 2002;
Lee, 2002) and being adapted
Six Sigma may lead to nearly perfect products and services. Moreover, Six Sigma is widening its
areas of application very
rapidly and there are examples of applying Six Sigma to predicting the probability of a company
bankruptcy (Neagu and
Hoerl, 2005) or finding opportunities for growth (Abramowich, 2005).
In the past five years, hundreds of organizations have indicated their interest in making Six
Sigma their management
philosophy of choice. While many of the businesses attempting to implement Six Sigma are well
intentioned and want
to implement Six Sigma properly just as General Electric did, there are also those impatient
executives who now look on
Six Sigma in the same way as they look on downsizing. This quick-fix approach to Six Sigma is
a sure path to the same
short-term results that prevent long-term profitability. Accordingly, it is defined in a variety of
ways by several authors, but for the purposes of these notes the definition from
Pande et al (2000) focused on the more comprehensive philosophy of Six Sigma will be used:
“A comprehensive and flexible system for achieving, sustaining and maximising business
success. Six Sigma is uniquely driven
by close understanding of customer needs, disciplined use of facts, data, and statistical
analysis, and diligent attention to
managing, improving, and reinventing business processes.”
A strong structure and clear alignment to organisational goals (particularly financial) are a key
part of the Six Sigma
approach as defined by Eckes (2001). Leadership is provided by a team of Champions – Senior
Champion, Deployment
Champion, Project Champion at corporate, unit and department levels respectively supported
by a team of experts. The
experts are referred to as Black Belts (who work full time on projects at process level to solve
critical problems and achieve
bottom-line results) and Master Black Belts (who provide mentoring, training and expert support
to the Black Belts). Ingle
and Roe (2001) note that that this significant organisational structure can range from 4000 Black
Belts in a corporate
population of 340,000 in GE to 120 Black Belts in a corporate population of 100,000 in Motorola.
Black Belt training is
typically 16 –20 weeks in GE and a year in Motorola (Ingle and Roe, 2001), although both are
interspersed with projects
that bring value to the organization.
Six Sigma is Strategic:
Historically, initiatives centered on quality have frequently been undertaken at a tactical level,
focused on projects or cost
reduction. Eckes (2001), amongst others makes the point that Six Sigma activities must be
supported by processes and
structures to ensure they move business objectives forward. Knowles et al (2005) suggest that
the DMAIC cycle should be
replaced by two linked cycles, one setting strategic objectives, from which project definitions are
developed and followed
through with the outcomes feeding back into the strategic cycle to understand the contribution
made to strategic objectives
and what that means at a strategic level.
Although senior management may profess their interest and support the practical evidence
suggests that most quality
related activities were delegated downwards to quality managers and that, despite the evidence
of benefit, they were
never seen as central. Six Sigma has moved the focus back to quality as a strategic initiative,
perhaps most famously in
the person of Jack Welch who not only declared that Six Sigma was central to the way he
expected GE to do business and
based 40% of senior management bonuses on achievement of Six Sigma targets but also
required that (as he did) senior
management (Henderson and Evans, 2000):
• Personally spend time in each Six Sigma training wave talking to candidates and
answering their questions.
• Drop in on Six Sigma reviews (held weekly and monthly).
• Make site visits to observe first-hand the integration of Six Sigma into business culture
and operations.
• Monitor progress through weekly summary reports and monthly reviews with the Master
Black Belt team.
By talking in the language of senior management (money) and by requiring hands-on
commitment and direct involvement
Six Sigma creates a much stronger cultural impact.