|Six Sigma received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on December 6 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
|WikiProject Business||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
Isn't there any criticism?
This sort of crap is a load of horse-shit, invented by idiots who have little to do and a lot of time on their hands, to invent garbage ideas to 'prove' their worth. Is there no criticism of this utter, absolute nonsense? it is used for the process improvement and helps in organization maturity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC) It has also been shown to save a remarkable amount of money for companies who have successfully implemented it. Like other quality methodologies, its value is only as good as its champion's commitment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC) PLEASE STOP CALLING SIX SIGMA A "STRATEGY." IT IS NOT A STRATEGY. IT IS AN EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skridgley (talk • contribs) 02:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Large public companies are basically required to claim tangible results for unmeasurables. It's only remarkable that people take these reports of savings as actionable information. [ bÐ i (22.214.171.124) 2014-03-13 22:28 UTC ]
I've added a section on criticism of the goal of reducing variation in some domains - based largely on work in the 1990's. If you have any new updates, please add them (and let me know).
Criticism of the goal of reducing variation
In some situations, an average outcome is a failure. This is particularly the case in races or tournaments with multiple highly skilled contenders where there is a disproportionate reward for being the best.
Business examples of tournaments include races for patents, other intellectual property, becoming the dominant player in an industry with positive network externalities (ex : social networking sites), setting an industry standard (ex : Microsoft windows, QWERTY keyboards).
Organizational examples of tournaments include contests for promotion.
In such situations, there may be a substantial benefit to increasing - not reducing variance. In fact it may be useful to sacrifice some mean performance to increase variance [Holt and Gaba 1995] This area has been initially examined in the statistical field of stochastic control. Some early work has also been done by Lola Lopes a decision scientist.
For intuition consider a tournament where a large prize goes to the best player (for example the first to patent an invention in an area) and the rest lose. Consider a tournament with 10 players with a mean value on some performance measure of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Each has a 1 in 10 chance of winning. Now consider what happens if one player sacrifices some mean performance to massively increase variance - for example a mean of -1 with a standard deviation of 100. That player now has approximately a 50 % chance of winning the tournament - a major improvement.
Now consider a player who implemented Six Sigma and effectively reduced their standard deviation to near zero. This player has now nearly no chance of winning the tournament.
As a practical matter, this is particularly a problem for industries which require and reward a high level of innovation, where challenges are difficult and rewards tend towards "winner take all" rather than proportional. (Intellectual property for example). In these areas six sigma can be directly counterproductive by reducing creativity, innovation and the variation necessary to win.
- There are at least three problems with your contribution:
- It appears to be WP:OFFTOPIC
- It appears to be original research
- I can't verify the one source you provide ("Holt and Gaba 1995") through Google scholar or Worldcat
This is clearly not WP:OFFTOPIC, far above the quality of the rest of the article, not original research but simple logic with an illustrative example. It is a bit too long, perhaps, but it is essential that this obvious limitation of six sigma should be in the article in some form. Six sigma' core idea is not applicable to anything other than standardization of static, well defined processes, and applying it to anything that demands originality, creativity, flexibility, responsiveness to conditions that rarely repeat or winner-take-all type situations will result in a worse outcome than if it had not been used, and the above section makes it intuitively mathematically clear why this is so. Enon (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
one sigma vs. six sigma
If one sigma is 31% in this article, someone should specify how these sigmas are different from statistical sigmas where one sigma is around 68% of a population. KTHX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's one sigma total on either side of the target; not one sigma on each side. Basically a half sigma in each direction. There's a chart on page 17 here that probably illustrates it better than I can explain. Kuru (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I was confused as well by the assertion that only 31% of parts in a 1 sigma process are error free. It only makes sense within the (much) later discussion wherein the mean is shifted by 1.5 sigma. To state the 31% result without reference to the 1.5 sigma shift is confusing to those of us who aren't already black belts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, this seems to cause confusion often. It's covered in the "Role of the 1.5 sigma shift" section here, but probably needs to be footnoted in the preceeding sections which will trip up other math majors. Kuru (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That table is frankly terrible and needs to be fixed, preferably by someone who both understands standard deviations on a normal curve as well as how six sigma uses it. If the goal is to look at P(X>Xbar+s) then that needs to be written down. The current description where 69% is considered to be beyond 1 sigma doesn't make much sense(seeing as 1 standard deviation is 68.2 % of the population). If it's one directional that has to be explicitly stated as many people use 2-sided specs. Urgh.
Also, the assumption of normality shouldn't just be mentioned in the criticisms but in the definition of the system. That's not a small assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else notice that before Six Sigma, Motorola were a microprocessor developer beloved by all, but since then they've become a shit phone company?
Yup, I think that just about sums the whole thing up, contributor. It's all a load of twaddle, job creation for many though ! The (American parent) company I worked for was, and probably still is, heavily into Six Sigma and steadily declined over a decade or so due to poor management. Interestingly, most of the management that moved on were SS black belts ! Cabinscooter (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
2011 Discussion - Certification
Unlike Project Management, HR or ROI Methodology, ix Sigma does not have a standard certifying body, there are several different organizations that certify individuals who complete the courses.
Based on this I added one of the recognized institutions that offers courses and certifications to those interested in Six Sigma training (green, black, master belts).
The link was removed the following day and tagged as commercial. I understand the desire to remove spammy links from the pages, but this is a legitimate university with a distinguished reputation and an online option, as many universities are moving to offer.
If you feel the link should not be included, that's ok. I feel it adds another option for those seeking professional education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoBlueWhite (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. It is certainly promotional to me, you are promoting this website as an authority on the subject.Pm master 10:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The best solution is to restrict ourselves to certification bodies mentioned in independent reliable secondary sources. --JN466 22:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is still ongoing, with a number of prominent and not so prominent firms being added and re-added without independent, secondary sourcing. . That is not okay. The ASQ and IQF are there by rights; they are mentioned as certifiers in many, many secondary sources that are independent of them. The cited book mentions the Juran Institute, Qualtec and Air Academy, which are also frequently mentioned in the literature. No others should be added without a secondary source, and evidence that they are at least equally prominent in the literature. Otherwise we will end up with a list of 50 companies, down to the Six Sigma trainer working from his garden office. --JN466 23:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)