Six Sigma - Research Paper Example

?Six Sigma: History, Philosophy, and Corps of Experts Introduction Six Sigma is becoming a powerful tool in insuring, or attempting to insure, the success of the company’s project activities. With the success stories of Motorola, General Electric, among other international companies, Six Sigma as a method is expanding its horizon; such method is no longer confined within the manufacturing company. Nowadays, companies, whether manufacturing or non-manufacturing, are seeing the benefits that Six Sigma offers to them. Surprisingly, though, Six Sigma is just a fairly modern invention. This paper explores and examines the definition, methodology, corps of experts, and criticisms attributed to Six Sigma system. Brief History As a measurement standard, on the one hand, Six Sigma dated back to the 1800s when the German mathematician named Carl Frederick Gauss introduced the notion of normal curve (Islam 17). As a standard in variation, on the other hand, Six Sigma originated in the 1920s when Walter Shewhart, a Bell Telephone Laboratories statistician, proved that the three sigma from the average level are the reference point by which the process in question requires correction (Islam 17). On the other hand of the scale, the history of the praxis of “Six Sigma” in companies is fairly modern. Its coinage was made only in the 1980s by the Motorola engineer named Bill Smith. According to Islam, Smith is the individual credited in coining such term (17). Smith’s Six Sigma is one of the results from the Motorola’s decision to secure its global leadership. In the same decade, perhaps prior to Smith’s coinage, the executive leaders of the Motorola Company established a four-point plan as a response to Sundry’s “[o]ur quality stinks” (Barney and McCarty 2). Here, Sundry refers to the feedback expressed by the company’s costumers concerning product quality. Of Motorola’s 1980s four-point plan, the third point plan was the essential factor in which it led to the creation and refinement of the Six Sigma methodology: quality improvements. Barney and McCarty describe the quality-improvement point plan in this fashion: “Drawing on traditional Total Quality Management (TQM) philosophy to adapt the principals and methodology of quality circles to the Motorola culture” (2). In the third point plan, one observes that the phrase “quality improvements” -- probably the early definition of “Six Sigma” -- is a concept that comes from the principle or theory prominent in TQM. That is to say, Six Sigma in its early inception is not far from similar to TQM in a fundamental manner; the modification only occurs in the TQM’s adaptation or application to the Motorola culture. Definition and Methodology Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh define the notion of Six Sigma in several ways; they state that Six Sigma is a way, a goal, an approach, and a system (77). First, Six Sigma is essentially a way or method of measuring certain process or processes. This implies that Six Sigma is a technique in which a particular activity or phenomenon (e.g., manufacturing products) is quantitatively measured. Second, Six Sigma is a goal, or has an end, of near perfection, which is quantifiable by 3.4 Defects per Million Opportunities or DPMO (Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 77). As an end, the application of Six Sigma to a specific process or activity largely aims for a 3.4 DPMO; that is to say, for every one million of company products being manufactured, the number of their defects should be within the 3.4 range. Third, Six Sigma is an approach in which the culture of the organization is greatly altered. This definition of Six Sigma is historically grounded; it reminds us of Motorola’s 1980s third point plan -- the function of quality improvements to the company’s culture. Unlike the practice of traditional management, Six Sigma as an approach changes significantly the roles of the members (i.e., top and bottom) of the organization. The functions of leaders and their subordinates are fundamentally modified. Fourth, Six Sigma is a system that builds and sustains the organization’s activity, performance, and success (Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 77). Kubiak and Benbow call this system as philosophy in which it considers all works or activities as processes that are definable, measurable, analyzable, improvable, and controllable (7). The philosophy of Six Sigma is basically premised on the principles of DMAIC. The methodology of Six Sigma follows five steps known as DMAIC (Mahapatra 549). In the first step (i.e., define), what is done is to identify the problem with much specific detail -- that is, in quantifiable terms (Brussee 22). Brussee says that most problem identification characterized in management work lacks provision of specific terms associated to the problem in question. On the other hand, Brussee provides a good example on how the first step of DMAIC is approached; instead of saying “[t]he customer is complaining that the quality of the motors has deteriorated,” one has to state that “[m]ore of the quarter-horsepower motors are failing the loading test beginning March 20” (Brussee 22). In contrast to the first statement, the last one speaks of the specific machine type, problem inherent in that machine, and date that the problem occurred. In the second step, the kind of measurement is highly considered after defining the problem. There are several measurement tools available in the second step of DMAIC method; examples of which are Pareto Chart, Histogram, Box Plot, among other tools. Brussee stresses the need to insure that the samples or data to be used in this step are “sufficient in number, random, and representative” of the process being measured (23). For the third step, the measured data based from the defined problem are thoroughly analyzed. That is to say, the problem which was initially defined is now analyzed or judged if indeed it is real or “just a random event” (Brussee 23). Thence, one has to look for additional variables that can reveal “specific process change.” In the fourth step, a possible solution or solutions are identified after the root cause of the problem is fully understood (Brussee 23). Lastly, in the final step of DMAIC, quality control is scheduled and systematically undertaken based from well-chosen solutions in the analyses of defined samples and in the evidences shown in the measurement verification. Of Corps of Experts: Colors and All According to Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh, the most well-known about the Six Sigma system is that it has created many and varied corps of experts (117). Among these corps of experts, the best publicized are the belts commonly known as “Green Belts,” “Black Belts,” and “Master Black Belts” (Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 117). These Six Sigma experts have distinguished roles or functions in the organization that practices such system or philosophy. Also known as generic roles, there are several “job descriptions” that generally compose the Six-Sigma-centered organization. Different from the three corps of experts, at least in composition, these generic roles include Leadership Council, Sponsor, Coach, Team Member, among other descriptions. Leadership Council is almost similar to the top management team characterized in TQM. In contrast to TQM, however, the Leadership Council’s job description has numerous yet clearly defined responsibilities to a particular project; an example of the duty of the Six Sigma Steering Committee -- another name for the Leadership Council -- is the establishment of “roles and infrastructure” of the initiative in question (Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 118). On the one hand, a Sponsor or Champion is usually a senior manager whose main task is to oversee the Six Sigma project; in general, he or she is accountable to the Leadership Council concerning the success or failure of the said project. On the other hand, a Team Member is someone who provides measurement, analysis, and improvement of the process being tackled. Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh generally give two optional Six Sigma structures (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). In their Option B, the Sponsor and the Master Black Belt are positioned at the top with the function of overseeing the project. Below them is the Black Belt whose role is to coach or support the Team Leader. At the bottom of the organizational structure is the Improvement Team whose task is to analyze, and implement improvement to, the Six Sigma project. Of Green Belts To be a Green Belt, says Blokdijk, it does not matter that that person is merely an “ordinary employee” (21). Among other requirements, the key requirement to become a Green Built is to be familiar with the concepts and practices of probability, statistics, and quantitative trend analyses (Blokdijk 21). The knowledge and praxis of these specialized fields (e.g., statistics) are essential in the application of DMAIC method, especially in its second step. Although receiving a certificate as a sign of being a Green Belt appears to be easy, the role and work of a Green Belt is far from being easy. Based from Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh’s two optional Six Sigma structures, the essential roles of a Green Belt are either to lead directly the project or to analyze and implement improvement. Within the Six Sigma context, Green Belts and Team Members are almost alike; although, at certain rate, the former is qualified to be a Team Member while the latter is not. By and large, Green Belts belong to the bottom part of the Six Sigma organization. But in spite of their position in the system, Green Belts, by the virtue of their duties, are very important to the success of a specific project or undertaking. Moreover, Blokdijk articulates that when the number of Green Belts in the organization is sufficient enough, then the dependence to the Black Belts is significantly reduced (21). This implies that a Green Belt can also serve as the Coach of the Six Sigma project. To obtain favorable result to a particular undertaking, Blokdijk argues that dividing the members of the organization into groups is empirical (21). That is to say, not all Green Belts should be a Team Leader or a Coach; the Green Belts, however, should be structured within the Six Sigma system with inherent roles and responsibilities distinct from the rest. Of Black Belts Of the central difference between Green Belts and Black Belts, the former works only as a part-timer while the latter works as a full-timer (George 22). In general, Green Belts receive less training program while Black Belts receive greater training. George states the three key functions of a Black Belt in his so-called the power of culture within the Six Sigma (23): first, a Black Belt leads and facilitates in solving the defined problem; second, he or she trains and coaches Team Leaders; and third, a Black Belt is a full-time employee. Like the Traditional Quality Management, Six Sigma is basically hierarchical. For one thing, Black Belts are positioned higher than that of Team Leaders or Green Belts. Unlike TQM, nonetheless, Six Sigma structure is alterable or, to borrow from the terminology of Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh, optional. George gives the recommended criteria in qualifying a Green Belt to become a Black Belt. Of the seven criteria, five of them bear a greater weight. George contends that human skills are far better than technical skills (126). Among these criteria are team leadership skill, project management experience, problem-solving training and experience, communication skills, and interest in a process view (George 126). First, a Black Belt is an individual with a strong leadership skill. This kind of skill is necessary given the inherent nature of its function or role in the organization: to lead Team Leaders. Second, a Black Belt has to have concrete experiences in managing Six-Sigma-based projects. A leader such as Black Belt becomes a great one when he or she undergoes several experiences that ultimately define his or her leadership quality. Finally, a Black Belt has to possess skills in problem-solving, interpersonal communication, and dynamic or critical thought. Of Master Black Belts Master Black Belts generally rise from the ranks of Black Belts. Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh observe that the various colors of Belts in the Six Sigma organization signify a kind of finely honed work discipline (123). The Master Black Belt, being the top rank among the Belts, is the most well-disciplined work position. In the Six Sigma structure illustrated by Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh, the Master Black Belt is the person who mediates between the Champion and the Black Belt, between the overseer and the coach. At a deeper level, a Master Black Belt communicates directly to the Sponsor, and indirectly to the Black Belt -- as suggested by heavy and cut lines, respectively. Tang describes the nature of the Master Black Belt by saying that he or she is the “consultant who provides expert advice” to the Process Owner (7). In contrast to Six Sigma organization presented by Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh, Tang’s structure of such organization includes the activities prominent in DMAIC methodology, which are performed by specific key positions. For instance, defining the problem -- the first step of DMAIC -- is a principal task of the Project Champion. Although the role or function of the Master Black Belt is clearly excluded in Tang’s Six Sigma Organization, it is suggestive, however, that such Belt is located near the Process Owner. That is to say, the Master Black Belt subtly defines or identifies, via his or her advice to the Process Owner, the problem of a particular process before the Project Champion makes such definition or identification. Criticisms Two of the many criticisms thrown against the Six Sigma philosophy are its non-original idea or theory and short-term aspect of project scale. First, Six Sigma appears to be a tool or method in which it has long “been in existence” (Urdhwareshe 15). The employment of statistics and probabilities -- two of the fields of knowledge in which they are a part of Six Sigma training and praxis -- has already been in used in the sphere of business or commerce. The Traditional Quality Management, in fact, has been utilizing, or has utilized, such statistical and probabilistic applications in the exploration and examination of managing organizational works, performances, and successes or failures. Urdhwareshe states that Six Sigma, in connection to the first criticism, is just like an “old wine in a new bottle” (15). This implies that Six Sigma system is nothing but a new name to an old system. Second, Six Sigma as an approach is merely short-term in time-scale. In this criticism, Six Sigma is reduced to a method in which it is done with a very brief time-period. That is to say, after one Six Sigma project is completed after a short period of, say, one month, the Six Sigma as a system disappears with the termination of such project. In the process, companies who use Six Sigma in their activities or projects spend a huge amount of money considering the high price tag associated to employing Black Belts and/or Master Black Belts. Conclusion Six Sigma as a term originates in the 1980s. As a philosophy, Six Sigma is a fairly modern field of management theory and application. In the course of time, the concept and praxis of Six Sigma have been fundamentally redefined. At the outset, Six Sigma came from the Traditional Quality Management aimed at its adaptation to a specific company culture. But as time progresses, Six Sigma attempts to build its own sphere of management theory and practice. Among the numerous definitions or redefinitions of the term Six Sigma, such term or concept is defined as the philosophy in which it views activities as processes that can be defined, measured, analyzed, improved, and controlled. Hence, the DMAIC methodology has become the trademark of Six Sigma. In the exercise of these DMAIC methods, there are inherent positions marked by colors or corps of experts. And despite the criticisms posed against Six Sigma, there are critical responses from the Green, Black, and Master Black Belts; they fight, through reasonable arguments, the battle over the originality and benefits characterized in Six Sigma methodology. Works Cited Barney, Matt, and Tom McCarty. The New Six Sigma: A Leader’s Guide to Achieving Rapid Business Improvement and Sustainable Results. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2003. Print. Blokdijk, Gerard. Six Sigma 100 Success Secrets. Emereo Publishing, 2008. Print. Brussee, Warren. All About Six Sigma: The Easy Way to Get Started. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2006. Print. George, Michael L. Lean Six Sigma. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002. Print. Islam, Kaliym A. Developing and Measuring Training the Six Sigma Way: A Business Approach to Training and Development. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Print. Kubiak, T. M., and Donald W. Benbow. The Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook. 2nd ed. Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press, 2009. Print. Mahapatra, P. B. Operations Management: A Quantitative Approach. New Delhi, India: PHI Learning, 2010. Print. Pande, Peter S., Robert P. Neuman, and Roland R. Cavanagh. The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies are Honing Their Performance. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000. Print. Tang, Loon Ching. Six Sigma: Advanced Tools for Black Belts and Master Black Belts. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Print. Urdhwareshe, Hemant. Six Sigma for Business Excellence: Approach, Tools and Applications. Kindersley, India: Saurabh Printers, 2011. Print. Appendix A Figure 1: Optional Six Sigma roles and structure (Pande, Neuman, and Cavanagh 123) Read More