Editor’s note: This is an attempt to use DMAIC methodology to resolve conflicts, in concert with the approach presented in an article titled “Feds may unleash Six Sigma on terrorism” by Del Jones in USA Today, October 30, 2002. By no means does either the author or Quality Digest consider the following discussion to represent even implicitly a fool-proof way to eliminate terrorism. The following has been presented simply to promote discussion of the use of Six Sigma in high-risk situations.

In the last several years, it appears that the world has been fighting terrorism. Actually, many governments have been fighting terrorists, not terrorism. Given the increase in intensity and frequency of the so-called terrorist attacks, there are more terrorists than before. Without a comprehensive understanding of terrorism, the use of the terms "terrorism" and "terrorists" must be questioned. We wonder, "Are they taking the right approach in the absence of any concrete measure of success?" They catch or eliminate one person, but does that mean that they have conquered terrorism?

The answer is obviously “No.” Maybe what’s needed is a different approach. When one tries to understand the process of terrorism, one defines expected outcomes in the absence of terrorism, establishes goals to move toward the target and arrives at a process to overcome terrorism. Basically, it’s a process of solving the problem of terrorism.

One of Stephen Covey’s seven habits of effective people is to understand before being understood. While fighting terrorism, one needs to understand first, before being understood. Governments communicate their demands, expectations and entitlements, rather than trying to understand the problem, its causes and alternate solutions.

During the Gulf War, one could understand the chain of thoughts, the sense of goodness and reason, and the power of shared responsibility among participating countries. Today, more than 15 years later, it looks like communication among countries is still not clear, and they’re fighting the same war over.

When a problem recurs, some things must change to prevent its recurrence. It appears that the distance between warring parties has increased. Governments want to succeed fast and their enemies don’t mind failing in the short term. Governments want to kill terrorists, and terrorists don’t mind dying. The question is, “Are the governments involved helping terrorists achieve martyrdom, or are they just trying to achieve their own political objectives?”

After the Sept. 11 events, the United States addressed the Taliban presence in Afghanistan. However, its strategy to sustain a solution appeared to be without sufficient support from the local community, including the surrounding countries. Imposed solutions are normally ignored by most people.

If a government is trying to purge a territory of terrorists, failure is the result, because terrorists are just a manifestation of terrorism. But if they try to tackle terrorism, there’s a chance of success, because reason may prevail. To get out of the current impasse in the Middle East, the parties involved must clearly state their objectives. The world must understand terrorism’s causes—poverty, unfairness and disrespect—and propose a solution that creatively addresses those causes. If they can address the causes of terrorism, terrorists will disappear. If they don’t resolve the causes of terrorism, a million cannons will get rid of neither terrorists nor terrorism.

The intent of Six Sigma is to solve a problem fast. Six Sigma utilizes a five-phase methodology—define, measure, analyze, improve and control—which can be used to approach the problem of terrorism systematically.

Define
The Define phase can help establish a charter on behalf of the United Nations, establish a process for dealing with international conflicts, identify stakeholders and establish customer demands. I foresee that the biggest influence will lie in identifying all stakeholders, seeing the gap between their commitment, forming a team to solve a problem, and actually agreeing upon the team leader. The underlying assumption is that all parties want to resolve the conflict because of the benefits they will receive.

Measure
In the Measure phase, performance can be measured in terms of symptoms, actions and players. The performance baseline can be established in terms of types of terrorism, manifestation, frequency, damage, losses, etc. One can review the cost of poor quality of life based on the unacceptable behavior of various processes and groups.

Analyze
The Analyze phase is where the contending parties will have to stay focused on a common goal—to live peacefully and help one another. "Love thy neighbor" must be the common intent. The root cause analysis must be performed with cross-functional, cross-cultural teamwork and an impartial facilitator. It must be agreed upfront that the team decision, once achieved within established ground rules, must be accepted by all. This is the most challenging and exciting phase of solving international problems. The caveat is to involve all stakeholders in the root cause analysis.

Improve
Once the root cause analysis is completed, in the Improve phase alternate solutions can be developed by a task force consisting of the conflicting parties and presented to the team that performed the root cause analysis. A causative analysis of the solution must be conducted to ensure the adequacy of the solution. At this stage, to ensure the solution’s effectiveness, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) can be used to anticipate potential problems. Lives are involved in international conflicts. FMEA is a must to any solution. One must lay out the implementation guidelines to minimize misunderstandings and inconsistencies during the implementation phase. Some give and take will be needed to implement any solution.

Control
In the Control phase, checks and balances must be identified, accountability must be established and consequences must be agreed upon to sustain implementation of the agreed solution and to ensure realization of its expected benefits. Data must be collected by all parties so the team can verify the effectiveness of the solution. The conflicting parties must agree to make necessary adjustments in a timely manner.

Using Six Sigma successfully to resolve conflicts requires all warring parties to commit to mutual respect and peaceful existence of all parties. Differences in religions may cause some uncertainties or a set of variables that must be objectively addressed. Imposing one’s own customs, behaviors, rituals, faith or decisions causes stress and thus reactions. Ignored issues will lead to random or unexpected reactions, which will eventually become difficult to resolve.

Similarly, fighting terrorists without addressing the causes of terrorism perpetuates discontent, violent reactions and more terror. One can practice Six Sigma thinking in resolving global conflicts. It may provide the breakthrough we’re all looking for. Terrorism can be understood as an unacceptable response to a contentious issue, a response that causes fear due to loss of life and assets. The world can work toward decreasing terrorism by addressing the root causes of the issues.