Someone recently asked me if Quality Digest is anti-Six Sigma. The person who asked, an unabashed Six Sigma
supporter, thought that we'd run one too many negative Six Sigma features. I wasn't surprised by the accusation. Indeed, we have published a number of articles, columns and news stories that have
questioned the validity of Six Sigma. But then, we've also run quite a number of "positive" Six Sigma pieces, including a monthly column by Tom Pyzdek dedicated to the subject. My belief as editor in chief of this publication--and it's generally my beliefs that set Quality Digest's editorial tone and policy--is that it's healthy for the marketplace to
be skeptical of new quality movements. For example, I think it could be fairly stated that Quality Digest is pro-ISO 9000. However, if you were to look back at articles that we ran during ISO
9000's development and infancy, you'd find some not-so-positive pieces about it. I remember more than a few registrars and consultants who accused me of being anti-ISO 9000 back then.
Why be skeptical at all? By being skeptical, we help our readers make informed decisions about issues they very often only hear about from consultants, whose primary objective is obviously
to sell their services. It also helps those who are implementing the new idea to learn from the mistakes of others. So, no, Quality Digest is not anti-Six Sigma. In fact, I
personally believe Six Sigma is a great idea. It's tough to dispute the incredible successes that organizations like GE, Motorola, Honeywell, Texas Instruments and Ford have had with Six Sigma.
However, blind faith in any movement is dangerous. Arrogant, self-serving consultants who believe that their way is the only way usually not only self-destruct but also drag their movements down
with them. I also believe that it's destructive for an organization to use quality improvement tools and techniques as weapons to get rid of or rate employees (very
anti-Deming). Six Sigma detractors claim--with varying degrees of accuracy--that some organizations have installed Six Sigma initiatives without integrating existing quality processes,
initiatives and personnel. Others claim that Six Sigma might be great for large organizations with large, complex problems to tackle, but that it's too cumbersome for small organizations or small
problems. (I seem to recall hearing that same thing about ISO 9000 about 10 years ago.) By reporting on these issues, we may trigger methods to overcome them. This month, we
present an unusual mix of Six Sigma coverage. It begins with a story in our News Digest section about the people side of Six Sigma. Next, Tom Pyzdek's column focuses on some real-life Six Sigma
applications. Robert A. Green's article examines Iomega's pursuit of Six Sigma standardization. We also debut our Six Sigma Showcase advertorial section this issue. And we wrap up the issue with
a unique guest editorial that presents a very different view of Six Sigma at GE. I'd like to know your thoughts on our Six Sigma coverage. Are we presenting too much, too
little? Is it too negative, too positive? E-mail your comments to spaton@qualitydigest.com |
