Six Sigma’s Unique Infrastructure
Some people contend that Six
Sigma adds nothing new to the technical toolkit used to
improve business processes. Past improvement initiatives
such as TQM certainly share a great deal with Six Sigma:
It also has management champions, improvement projects,
sponsors and such. However, Six Sigma has added something
new: an infrastructure for change.
Six Sigma’s infrastructure creates formally defined
change agent positions filled by people who possess technical
knowledge about the change process. Some observers criticize
this practice as creating new “elites” within
the organization. I can’t argue that this isn’t
true, but I’m not an advocate of unbridled egalitarianism
for its own sake. The question isn’t whether the “Belts”
are elites. The question is: Does this approach to organizing
for change work better than available alternatives? Let’s
examine some commonly proposed alternatives to creating
a small group of highly trained change agent professionals:
Train the masses. This is the “quality circles”
approach. People in the lowest level of the organizational
hierarchy are trained in the use of basic tools and solve
problems without explicit direction from leadership. When
this approach was tried in America in the 1970s, the results
were disappointing. Japanese originators of the quality
circles concept reported considerably greater success with
the approach. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that
Japanese circles were integrated into decades-old companywide
process improvement activities, whereas U.S. firms typically
implemented circles by themselves.
Train the managers. This involves training senior and middle
management in change agent skills—not a bad idea.
However, if the basic structure of the organization doesn’t
change, there’s no clear way to apply the skills.
Trained managers often return to the same job, and as
time goes by, their skills and self-confidence wane. If
opportunities to apply their knowledge do arise, they often
fail to recognize it. Or, if they do recognize it, they
fail to correctly apply the approach. This is natural for
a person trying to do something different for the first
time. Change agents in Six Sigma learn by doing. By the
end of their tenure, they can confidently apply Six Sigma
methodology to a wide variety of situations.
Use experts in other areas. The tools of Six Sigma are not
new. In fact, industrial statisticians, ASQ-certified quality
engineers, reliability engineers, quality technicians, systems
engineers, industrial engineers, manufacturing engineers
and other specialists already possess a respectable level
of expertise in many Six Sigma tools. Some have a level
of mastery that exceeds that of Black Belts.
However, being a successful change agent involves a great
deal more than mastery of technical tools. Black Belts,
Green Belts and Master Black Belts learn tools and techniques
in the context of following the DMAIC approach to drive
organizational change. This is different than using the
same techniques in routine daily work. Quality engineers,
for example, generally report to a single boss and have
well-defined responsibilities. In contrast, Black Belts
actively seek projects rather than work on anything routine.
They report to many different people, who use different
criteria to evaluate the Black Belts’ performance.
They’re accountable for delivering measurable bottom-line
results. Obviously, the type of person who is good at one
job may not be suitable for the other.
Create permanent change agent positions. Another option
for the Black Belt position is to make the job permanent.
After all, why not make maximum use of the training by keeping
the Black Belt indefinitely? There are, however, arguments
against this approach. Having temporary Black Belts allows
more people to go through the position, thus increasing
the number of people in management with Black Belt experience.
Because Black Belts work on projects that affect many
different areas of the enterprise, they have a broad process-oriented
perspective that’s extremely valuable in top management
positions. The continuous influx of new blood into Black
Belt positions keeps the thinking fresh and prevents the
“them vs. us” mentality that often develops
within functional units. New Black Belts have different
contacts throughout the organization, which leads to projects
in areas that might otherwise be missed. Permanent Black
Belts would almost certainly be more influenced by their
full-time boss than would temporary Black Belts, thus leading
to a more provincial focus.
Six Sigma’s unique infrastructure includes a mix
of full- and part-time, temporary, and permanent change
agents. It provides extensive technical training to a few,
moderate training to exempt employees, and some training
to many nonexempt employees. It will certainly be improved
upon in the future, but for now it seems to be the best
bet for any organization wanting to transform itself.
Thomas Pyzdek is a consultant and the author of
The Six Sigma Handbook and The Six Sigma Project
Planner (both McGraw-Hill, 2003). He is an ASQ Fellow
and recipient of the ASQ Edwards Medal for outstanding contributions
to the practice of quality management. Learn more about
Pyzdek’s approach to Six Sigma at www.pyzdek.com.
Letters to the editor regarding this editorial can be sent
to letters@qualitydigest.com.
|
by
Thomas Pyzdek