We'd like to switch to Inspection Level 1 (from Level 2) due to manpower constraints. Any clue how we might justify this move? The Mil Std says "Level 1 may be used when less discrimination is needed...". Can we base it on supplier performance and on-site supplier audit results?
Also, we want to use AQL 0 for our critical catagory instead of our current 0.065. Based on our average shipment size we would reduce our sample size significantly (from 800 to 500 units). Our sample size would be taken right off the chart under the "Sample Size" heading instead of under the AQL column for 0.065. Then we would simply use accept 0, reject 1. Another problem with using 0.065, besides the larger sample size, is that at 800 units we have accept 1, reject 2. We don't want to accept any critical defects.
bimamr 10/22/2004
Our Business Unit has been involved in 6 Sigma for several years and claims outstanding results; however, we face the dilemma of institutionalizing the results of our 6 Sigma teams (Our Flaw). We find that there is the initial thrust with getting some results, the BB moves on, the stakeholders get busy with their real jobs, the sponsor takes no responsibility for the project, and within a short period of time all the gains are lost. Case in point… we have had no less than four 6 Sigma teams to control inventory.
Our solution to this situation is we have created a Business Process Framework (BPF) to capture the process in a flowchart with documentation for the procedures. We are using the 6 Sigma DMAIC process to Measure, Analyze and Improve the processes. The BPF processes are assigned to stakeholder Owners, not to the Quality Manager. The results is the process becomes Value Added. The Owners / Green Belts have realized that once they get their process documented there is visibility to their issues and things begin to improve. The BPF is online for easy access.
The final caveat is the 6 Sigma processes that previously drifted into the Ethernet are now captured in flowcharts and documentation. These processes will be audited for compliance to various certifications… ISO 9001:2000 and Sarbanes-Oxley to name two. Hopefully we have completed our last 6 Sigma project to control inventory!
rachola 10/14/2004
Tom Pyzdek replies:
Now that's the $64,000 question for the CEO. There is no easy answer. I've heard CEO's bemoan a lack of progress even after years of trying to deploy 6-sigma. However, the best of them will admit that it's a failure of their leadership. Six Sigma is an attempt to change things for the better, but "better" is a subjective term. Even when a project shows, for example, bottom line savings, that's no guarantee that the other stakeholders (employees, customers) are better off. The CEO gets big bucks to perform a delicate balancing act: short-term & long-term, customers & employees & shareholders. If Six Sigma doesn't reflect a balance among these competing interests, then it will be resisted. The CEO has to craft a Six Sigma effort that has many "ands" but few "ors".
This lesson applies from the highest strategic level to the project level. A good Black Belt will perform a stakeholder analysis very early on, ideally in the project charter stage. The project plan should account for the interests of all stakeholders. If there's doubt that the project can successfully balance competing stakeholder concerns, then a risk analysis should be undertaken and the charter revised. If the BB can't address the risks by modifying the charter, he or she should refer the project back to the sponsor and their Master Black Belt so they can set the stage for success by addressing organizational and cultural issues. It's a colossal (but common) waste of time to try to change culture at the BB level of the organization. I've seen it work a few times, but I've seen it fail far more often.
quiz 11/27/2004
Perhaps the answer lies more in fully understanding your potential problems prior to implementation. Any process (and s/s is a process) must account for regression first hand.
More importantly how do you plan for that.I really do not see much need for all the belts etc. in this process.I will tell you your process will be what is the easiest way to work on a daily basis. Stakeholders are the folks who work the process every day not the belt holder.the key is to understand process in its simplest form, it provides all the answers if not now as needed, once every one needs the process the process becomes genetic...
tammym 10/21/2004
This is an apt summation of most articles dealing w/ a failed or less than successful deployment of Six Sigma. Having been thru it with moderate success, I will add another key component overlooked: the issue of company incentives. If the incentive program rewards individuals vs. teams, it will be a cold day in the tropics before some executives will share success w/ a Black Belt or project team. Yes, change management starts at the top, not the BB level. There was an excellent article in the 11/03 issue of HBR (Harvard Bus. Review) in re Non-financial performance metrics if you want to understand more. While there's no "I" in team, there is in incentive so perhaps we need to start there.