Extensive benchmarking has revealed the “average company” to be about 4 sigma capable.  Compared to Six Sigma the difference is about 1,800X.  Obviously, if one aspires to such a plateau, change is certain.  If change is certain, it is prudent to manage that change.  After all, it is doubtful that one can achieve a 1,800X improvement without a lot of management along the way – its not going to happen by chance.  Of course, the effort to achieve this aim would clearly require a set of parallel and progressive projects.  From sixty thousand feet, we now have the connection between Six Sigma, change management, and project management.

So as to frame a specific response to your question, let us set forth several definitions.  First, consider the concept of “change” as opposed to the phrase “a change.”  Simply stated, the idea of “a change” is merely “a relative deviation.”  In this milieu, it is a resulting difference.  However, the “ways and means” for realizing such a difference is undoubtedly more akin your question.  To gain even deeper insight, ponder the idea of “management.”  Succinctly stated, management can be described as “the judicious use of control toward the attainment of an end.”  From a lofty height, we can say that Six Sigma is “a fact-based, value-driven business management system.”

Furthering our context, we assert that the sole purpose of a corporation is to minimize transactional cost.  Hence, the aim of change management or project management (in a Six Sigma context) is to “judiciously apply formal and informal means of control so as to effectively and efficiently reduce the transactional costs associated with the creation of world-class value.”  It should now be apparent that we must better manage our change projects if we are to realize better profit.  In this manner, we improve the “quality of business.”  Hence, the operational association between Six Sigma, change management, and project management.