Six-Sigma’s Orderly Withdrawal: The Right-Sizing of a Problem-Solving Methodology
We respect your privacy, by submitting this form you agree to having your details passed onto the sponsor who may promote similar products and services related to your area of interest. For further information on how we process and monitor your personal data click here.
After roughly 30 years (1979 – 2009), Six Sigma-DMAIC, when examined as a structured, scientific–based, problem-solving methodology (and its record of providing tangible, bottom-line benefits) stands up to the test of time. It has however, not lived up to the remainder of its wide claims as a stand-alone program for strategy, change management, leadership development, and as a quality and continuous improvement strategy, these weaknesses primarily being traced to Six Sigma’s minimal/poor consideration of the human, behavioral, and team-participative aspects of creating and driving sustainable change.
In this white paper, David Joecken, a Six Sigma Master-Blackbelt at a privately-owned tier-one automotive supplier, examines Six Sigma’s historical legacy and projects its future role. From Six Sigma’s initial creation and conception thirty years ago, to its widespread appeal, a potential exaggeration and overextension is postulated. A subsequent exploration and critique of the potential strengths and overextensions is conducted in the following areas: problem solving methodology (DMAIC), bottom-line benefits privider, overall business and change managment strategy, leadership and management development program, and quality and continuous imprvement strategy (replacing TQM and other programs).
A final observation using the (character witness of) North American-specific history of quality management and improvement initiatives, postulates that Six Sigma, although a credible methodology, was oversold as part of an ongoing cultural and economic convention.