27 March 2010 by Fang Zhou
|
Printable version | Email to a friend | ||||||||||||
Six Sigma: Misunderstood |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
I recently read a blog on GE Healthcare’s website. http://nextlevel.gehealthcare.com/cost/a-child-of-our-own.php Although the general idea of needing better ways to improve healthcare systems is valid, I cannot agree with the underlying interpretation of what Lean and Six Sigma are. It seems to me many people view Lean and Six Sigma as 1. tools for solving specific problems To me, Lean and Six Sigma are: 1. a philosophy of scientific problem solving As defined above, Lean Six Sigma is dynamic. Period. Scientific thinking and PDCA cycle are fundamental to its continued learning and evolution. The right behaviors and thinking process cannot be taught. They have to be learned through life-long experiences. And Lean Six Sigma concepts, just as those we learned in our education, only create the initial framework for us to begin our learning process. With the 4 points in mind, there is no concept of a "hybrid" methodology or boundaries to delineate different methodologies. There is no "not invented here" or "my tool is better than yours" kind of idea. Saying "Lean and Six Sigma do not work for some industries or organizations" is like saying "Scientific thinking does not apply in what we do." I always become very skeptical when someone tells me something "doesn’t work for you" or "is out of date" without understanding the root cause of the problem. Typically, they are preparing me for what they are going to sell me, "the Next New Thing." Buyer be aware. Misunderstanding of Lean Six Sigma can be a serious roadblock to its adoption and application. In my opinion, many of the problems raised in the above blog have nothing to do with the methodology itself, but rather the lack of understanding of what Lean Six Sigma truly is. I contrasted my view of Lean Six Sigma to some people’s perception. So what does Lean Six Sigma really mean to you? What do you know about others, Lean Six Sigma professionals or not? How are you communicating its real meaning? |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| General | |||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| posted by Fang Zhou at 6:56 PM ET | comments [8] | |||||||||||||
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
StumbleUpon|
|
| posted by michael cardus [ http://www.create-learning.com ] | 28 March 2010 at 7:31 AM ET |
This mis-understanding comes from an immediate reaction to ideas. Organizations have a slow adoption process and following the status quo is safe. I enjoy how you explained lean 6S as a continued development process. For leaders to continue to develop the ability for learning agility is an indicator for success. |
|
| posted by ivra ihaleleri [ http://www.icraturk.com ] | 31 March 2010 at 4:36 AM ET |
it is great article thanks for sharing |
|
| posted by Fang Zhou [ http://blogs.isixsigma.com/fangzhou ] | 1 April 2010 at 2:55 PM ET |
Thanks for the great comments. Lean or Six Sigma we all love is really a philosophy. I like the definition of Philosophy by New World Encyclopedia. Changing culture starts from ourselves and one person at a time. However, it's unrealistic to change how everyone (including management) thinks. So we have to help those who want to change and manage those who don't. |
|
| posted by Stephen C. Crate [ http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/btc/about-us.html ] | 11 April 2010 at 6:11 AM ET |
Your interpretation of sixsigma is exceptional. The work we do is continuous and when done correctly improves process, product and employee morale. Labels then become political tools or even weapons to gain influence, authority and effectiveness in the policy development of the organization. It is critical to maintain the big picture of continuous improvement or the "labels" wil become devisive in the successful development of the organization. |
|
| posted by Fang Zhou [ http://blogs.isixsigma.com/fangzhou ] | 18 April 2010 at 12:36 PM ET |
Narayan, thanks for your comments. I think we are in agreement that continuous improvement should embrace all appropriate techniques, not limited by their origins. I used "Six Sigma" as a generic term for continuous improvement, and don't want to imply that Six Sigma is better or broader. As Stephen commented above, it's just a label. I could have made the title "Continuous Improvement: misunderstood" without any change in content. Similarly, this iSixSigma's blog site is called "Six Sigma Blog." we discuss Lean, Six Sigma, Leadership, and management in general. I also agree on the need to emphasize statistical techniques in Six Sigma. It's not uncommon that a so called "Six Sigma" project lacks the critical thinking that differentiates it from a "non-Six Sigma" project. I think there are at least a couple of reasons for this. 1. Statistics is very foreign to most people, even technical staff (scientists and engineers). It's extremely hard to learn and apply in the real world in a typical deployment timeframe (1-3 years). That's why I think a continuous improvement culture has to be established before Six Sigma can really start to make a large impact. 2. Six Sigma (as narrowly defined/focused on statistics and understanding of variation) does not solve many common problems in a typical organization new to Lean/Six Sigma. It's almost required that Six Sigma practitioners incorporate, or in some cases replace, Six Sigma tools with other techniques in order to achieve results. Without the organizational structure to support, and the discipline (or personal leadership) to apply, Six Sigma (or other techniques), the methodology is destined to fade as time goes. People often do what they can, the easy way out. |
|