{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Lean Six Sigma: 10 Objections and Answers

Can we stop calling it a fad now?

Matthew Barsalou
Tue, 10/13/2015 - 11:37
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
  • Add new comment
Body

I gave a rather successful talk on communicating design of experiments (DoE) at the recent ENBIS 14 conference in Linz, Austria. Things went mostly well, but it’s also fair to say many attendees had one major criticism: I didn’t explain why one factor at a time testing (OFAT) isn’t ideal. That oversight helped me realize how fortunate I am when it comes to lean Six Sigma. I no longer find myself having to explain what it is or why it can be beneficial.

ADVERTISEMENT

Things were different in the past. I frequently heard criticisms about both Six Sigma and lean Six Sigma, and I often found myself attempting to justify them. Here are 10 common criticisms I used to hear as well as rebuttals to each.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by bdaniels on Tue, 10/13/2015 - 10:26

But you didn't answer the question

Matt - very nice article that addresses the 'yeah-buts' of Lean Six Sigma...

Just wanted to point out (tongue in cheek) that you didn't explain why OFATs are bad.  :)

  • Reply

Submitted by Tom Pyzdek on Tue, 10/13/2015 - 10:07

I applaud your efforts to

I applaud your efforts to address the various myths surrounding Lean Six Sigma. As the author of The Six Sigma Handbook and the owner of an online Lean Six Sigma training company I frequently receive emails with the general theme of "Lean Six Sigma is Dead." Forbes has created a minor industry on the subject going back at least a decade. This must be the only fad that is going on 30  years old.

  • Reply

Submitted by Dr Burns on Tue, 10/13/2015 - 14:18

Six Sigma's six sigma

The 1.5 Sigma shift/drift/correction is not "dubious" as you euphemistically claim.  It is fabricated, pure and utter nonsense.

These articles describe the origins of the Six Sigma nonsense in detail:http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/six-sigma-lessons…

As Dr Wheeler puts it "a triumph over common sense".  If you suggest there is some validity to Six Sigma's six sigma, please prove it to us.

  

  • Reply

Submitted by bdaniels on Thu, 10/15/2015 - 06:25

In reply to Six Sigma's six sigma by Dr Burns

The 'Shift'; Just Say No

Dubious:  adjective

1. hesitating or doubting

2. not to be relied upon, suspect

I think Matthew was succinct in basically saying that it is a 'concept' that should not be relied upon without being abrupt or rude.  And he effectively stated that thse shift's veracity is irrelevent.  He seems not to care about the statistical aspects of the name "Six Sigma", which has reached the level of Kleenex as a 'generic name' for Quality Improvement philosophies, methods and tools.  Most people* have simply moved on from the whole 'six sigma 1.5 sigma shift' thing.  As Matthew points out, it isn't relevent to improving quality, so it isn't worth the time to discuss it or attempt to prove or disprove it again (and again and again and again).  Life is just too short to get upset about a side issue. 

I've attended the last several years of the ASQ Lean Six Sigma Conference and I didn't hear or see a single reference to the shift.  People were simply focused on finding practical approaches that would work for them.  If we are going to champion Quality Improvements perhaps we are better served by focusing our efforts on the real issues we face, such as understanding the difference between enumerative and analytical statistics and diagnostics strategies that provide alternatives to fishbone diagrams and 'brainstorming'.   Let's give people practical tools and methods that they can use instead of telling them the old mythical horse is dead...

*the only exception being companies in India who seem to have just discovered the old writings but they too will find their way out of the statistical desert...Some people won't get it of course, but we'll never change their minds so I choose to focus on what I can do...

  • Reply

Submitted by Matt_B on Wed, 10/21/2015 - 09:55

OK then, how about “irrelevant” in place of “dubious”?

Perhaps I should have said “irrelevant” in place of “dubious.” It is 2015; we should not even be having this conversation.

I reread my article and I did not see any reference to the validity of Six Sigma’s six sigma. It was simply not addressed. However, if you would like proof of some form, please see the references listed at the end of the column. The resulting savings in hard cash is what matters, not origin of the sigma shift.

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us