Six Sigma is past its sell by date

Here's a new axiom for you.  Let's call it the Management philosophy extension concept:  Every management philosophy, once accepted, will be applied in functions within the business with ever decreasing return, until the entire business has been saturated with the approach. 

This axiom holds true for almost any management philosophy.  This is not to say that concepts like TQM, BPR, outsourcing, right-sizing, Six Sigma or any other philosophy or approach is wrong, just that once any concept proves some value in one location or function of the business, it is eventually applied to every function or process in the business.  When you have a hammer, especially one that worked in one part of the business, every other problem begins to look like a nail.

My beef is not with Six Sigma so much as it is with managers who are interested in solving new problems with old tools.  No matter how well established or how the tool has performed in the past, some tools just don't align to new problems.  You don't take a knife to a shootout, and you don't apply Six Sigma to growth initiatives, no matter how successful Six Sigma has been in the past.

Many of these management philosophies create a priesthood or separate caste, people with expertise who are called in to apply their knowledge of the sacred tools regardless of the fit for the need.  Once ensconced in the priesthood, it becomes hard to admit that a tool or approach simply isn't right for a new problem.

For example, we were talking with a small team within one of the armed services branches about creating innovative approaches to war fighting.  A senior member of the team suggested that they had the tools and approach they needed - they'd just finished installing a Six Sigma program.  Why, he asked, do we need an innovation capability when Six Sigma seems to work just fine so far?

Here's my answer, and what we told him:  Six Sigma is great for continuous improvement, assuming that everything you do resembles what you've done in the past.  Six Sigma is great for improving a process or concept that exists, but is not intended for use in a complete new problem or environment.  How can you continuously improve something that doesn't yet exist?  When we are talking about creating new methods, new products or in this case new war fighting techniques, Six Sigma is not the correct tool, no matter how well it may have served in other areas.  Six Sigma, continuous improvement and this batch of tools and thinking is great when the problem is well known and well defined and incremental improvements are necessary.  When the enemy - in this case a real enemy - is constantly innovating the way they fight, can we approach the problem as one of incremental change - or disruptive behavior?

We've reached the point where Six Sigma, which has great usefulness, is being applied to problems it was not meant to solve.  In many organizations, we're using outdated or outmoded management models that have worked in the past to address problems that the methods were not intended to address, simply because it's easier to rely on the tools we know and trust rather than introduce new methods that are more applicable.  Talk about fighting the last war...

Comments

[joseph provino]

I think that the point you've made is open to debate. As six sigma is a flexible methodology that can be fitted to any type of problems as long as there is a need.
Some business problem won't require the use of six sigma for sure. As you pointed out some managers will try implementing Six sigma where there are no need. An easy recap of the six sigma underlying methodoly (DMAIC)is that the first step is the Define stage.. and if a manager doesn't Define is project or if the problem doesn't fit/require Six sigma: Six sigma shouldn't be use.

It is like using a screw driver where you need a spanner.

There is many other problem solving process to use in these cases.

I hear a lot of discussion about Six sigma, both negative or positive but the think that I retain is that Six sigma is a methology well different than TQM or ISO or other quality management systems. In the sense that Six Sigma focuses primiraly on drilling down into one problem, instead of spreading a word in an organisation saying:"please do things better", Six sigma does focus on the finished product and the voice of the customer, instead of improving quality and processes internally without return to the main stakeholder: the customer. finally Six sigma considers all angles of a problem when looking at a problem or before going to the improve stage.

There are many way to approach a problem for sure and I think the Six sigma methodology is robust enough to enable a good flexibility around a free way to employ it.

[Dan Markovitz]

This is really an important post. You're spot on in your diagnosis of the business world's tendency to prepare to fight the last war (to latch onto your military example). Success will inevitably breed complacency, even in the way that we choose to address problems.

I see the same problem in the way that people manage their work. They use the same tools (e.g., to-do lists scribbled on yellow legal pads) even though more information is now coming at them faster than ever before. And the old ways just don't work. People need to change.

[Six Sigma Belt]

Interesting article and good follow-up conversation. My biggest question about Six Sigma is how long before the next great quality system emerges to compete and then everyone will be jumping ship for the latest processes and methodologies.