Message: 15934
Posted by: Tim
Posted on: Wednesday, 17th July 2002
——————————————————————————–
Hi,
I am writing my thesis about Six Sigma and try to compare TQM and Six Sigma. Actually there are differences but does anyone know how to define TQM exactly. Can I use Deming for this comparison? Does it make sence to point out that Kaizen is a method TQM uses for continual improvement. So I can compare Kaizen and Six Sigma? Which methods from TQM are also comparable with Six Sigma?
Thanks for your help!
Tim
——————————————————————————–
Message: 15943
Posted by: taylor
Posted on: Wednesday, 17th July 2002
——————————————————————————–
After reading the Pyzdek handbook on Six Sigma and the Hrdesky hand book on TQM, I found very few differences between the two.
Two differences I did find however were: 1. TQM manages to +/- 3 Sigma. and 2) Six Sigma is less bureaucratic than TQM. Otherwise, the differences are very subtle.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16048
Posted by: Joe
Posted on: Friday, 19th July 2002
——————————————————————————–
Tim,
It seems you have set about a tremendous undertaking. I have been working in the field of quality for nearly 30 years and have seen all the names come and go. Let me give you my take on TQM. Total Quality Management cannot be represented by one or just a few concepts or methods. For me, TQM has always been the application and synthesis of many methods. To undersatnd TQM, one needs to understand the works of: Joseph M. Juran, W. Edwards Deming, Armand V. Feigenbaum, Philip B. Crosby, Kauru Ishikawa, Genichi Taguchi, Walter A. Shewhart, Acheson Duncan, to name several. There are many more.
The Six Sigma Way points out that Six Sigma is TQM on steroids. I must agree with this. As in my definition, TQM is the development, deployment and maintenance of systems/processes related to quality producing business process excellence.
Guess you can add ISO 9000, QS 9000, TL 9000, MBNQA and whole host of other standards and practices.
From my view, the name has been changed, a new coat of paint added and it is still the same car, just a new salesman.
Good luck with your thesis.
Joe
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16053
Posted by: Sergio Salgado
Posted on: Friday, 19th July 2002
——————————————————————————–
I want to throw the definition of Kid Sadgrove about TQM:
“TQM means satisfy the customer at the first time and all the times. Means train the people to solve problems and avoid waist.”
“TQM is not a Management tool is a style of work”
Remember that TQM is the result of using a solid background like ISO 9000 and then built thrue technics and tools like FEMA, Blitz KAIZEN, TPM, Poka Yoke, Quality Circles, empowerment, etc., until obtain the Total Quality Management.
Good luck!!!
Sergio Salgado
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16056
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Saturday, 20th July 2002
——————————————————————————–
Tim,
There are a lot of similarities and a lot of differences. Basically asking opinions flies in the face of both since both disciplines rely on the use of data. As previously suggested there is a lot of information on this website alone.
Take a look at the application and structure around Six Sigma and TQM. Look at the tool sets. The Gurus are not owned by TQM. If you read Juran’s “Managerial Breakthrough” 1964 you will see the fundimental thought that differentiated control and breakthrough was documented and explained over 30 years ago. One didn’t come frome the other and TQM on steroids was a term used at Allied before the book was ever written.
Writing anything on one verses the other is really a waste of time. They do not have to be independent events or in conflict. They are complimentary at worst and next steps at best. Neither is the answer to every problem. Motorola is always discussed around their deployment in 88. Get a copy of the card that everone was required to carry and you will see it was one of several initiatives launched simultaneously. Remember the old overworked buzz word synergy? Allied had been through several TQM deployments when we launched the SS deployment in 95. It provided a great structure to launch from. GE had been through Work out, DFT, and several other programs. Same thing, a good launching pad. Most programs will integrate with another and provide more leverage to the company. Stand alone run contrary to Deming’s idea of “no such thing as instant pudding.” There are some pretty smart people out there running companies (just look at what they can accomplish with a basic tool such as accounting). If one program would do it they would all be engaged and there wouldn’t be anything else.
Do the research. Form your own opinion based on the data.
Good luck.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16059
Posted by: Rajanga Sivakumar
Posted on: Saturday, 20th July 2002
——————————————————————————–
Business excellence in an organization encompasses the areas of Strategic Focus or Intent, Customer Loyalty/Advocacy, Employee Delight, and Seamless Process Integration. All the Business Excellence Models like Baldrige, EFQM etc. have these areas incorporated in their models in different ways. For the successful implementation of the Business Excellence Programs, management commitment is an absolute must. Now to my mind any process improvement activity be it Deming’s PDCA or the much hyped Six-Sigma, is only a sub-set in striving for Business Excellence. To be an excellent organization, you need well-articulated shared Vision/Mission with the end customer in mind. The Vision/Mission has to be achieved through a shared plan with key strategies. The organization needs excellence in process management and very well motivated employees to ensure that there is excellence in implementation through the organization. Taken this for granted, all process improvement teams first identify all the key processes that touch their customers (internal and external) and understand how they work in “as is” situation (i.e. now). Then, find out what the customers say about the products/services which they get/experience through the different processes. Based on their feedback, improvement teams do specific improvement projects. You can use the six-sigma methodology or Deming’s PDCA methodology. They are all nearly the same. One can consider the following steps. It is better to have a Facilitator who is knowledgeable about the methodology one decides to adopt. It is of great help to start small and attack one issue at a time.
Step 1 : Project selection (state the issue)
Step 2 : Grasp the present status
Step 3 : Determine the causes and corrective action(s).Some data collection may be needed here.
Step 4 : Implement corrective action(s)
Step 5 : Check effectiveness of corrective action(s)
Step 6 : Standardize and control
Step 7 : Conclusions and future plans
Hope this helps.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16094
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Monday, 22nd July 2002
——————————————————————————–
Rajanga,
Did you read Tim’s question?
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16808
Posted by: Withheld
Posted on: Saturday, 10th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
You just described Honeywell before they were purchased … er – assimilated by Allied!
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16811
Posted by: Rajanga Sivakumar
Posted on: Saturday, 10th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
TQM is path to Business excellence. Business excellence in an organization encompasses the areas of Strategic Focus or Intent, Customer Loyalty/Advocacy, Employee Delight, and Seamless Process Integration. All the Business Excellence Models like Baldrige, EFQM etc. have these areas incorporated in their models in different ways. For the successful implementation of the Business Excellence Programs, management commitment is an absolute must. To be an excellent organization, there needs to be well articulated shared Vision/Mission with the end customer in mind. The Vision/Mission has to be achieved through shared plans with key strategies.
The organization needs excellence in process management and very well motivated employees to ensure that there is excellence in implementation throughout the organization. Therefore, there is need to constantly evaluate all processes in the areas specified in the different models to meet the end customer requirements. In fact improvements could be from simple employee suggestions to team improvement projects to complex re-engineering efforts. Now to my mind any process improvement activity be it Deming’s PDCA or the Six-Sigma, is only a sub-set in striving for Business Excellence.
Message: 16839
Posted by: Mark
Posted on: Monday, 12th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Tim,
Having done a thesis on design methodologies I can sympathize with your dilema. Here’s my advice. You can’t think of this as a neat flowchart or block diagram; it’s not. It is a network (or cloud) of interrelated topics. Like Mike Carnell describes in a post about low hanging fruit, it is not a simple 123 you’re done process. It is a multi-level, cyclical movement. To describe it to people so they receive a significant understanding you will probably need to use analogies. One could be a river full of islands (creating many paths), eddies (feedback and iterations) … and don’t forget the rocks! Naturally, any analog breaks down at some point. For example, a river is governed by gravity which has no counterpart in SS.
Hopefully, that stirs the pot a little. Mark
——————————————————————————–
Message: 16857
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Monday, 12th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Mark,
I like the river analogy. It mixes well with the Lean’s “lower the level and expose the rocks.”
I have a use for it in a presentation at the end of this month in Toronto. I will cite it as “Mark from iSixSigma Dicussion Forum” unless you care to add information. If you would like it changed please email me at SixSigmaApaol.com.
Just to give you my thoughts. The path you might take in a SS project could be one thing, a full river which meanders slowly all over. If you were to do Lean first and lower the level of the river the flow can be entirely different in terms of path and velocity. To philosophical?
Your thing on gravity seems to be correct. Actually it is almost anti-gravity. Projects seem to struggle to get back to their original state.
Thanks.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17041
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Thursday, 15th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Ovidiu (and Withheld),
Thanks for bringing this back. I lost track of this string, primarily by choice. Nothing personal ment to Withheld.
Savings has always been an issue. When you deploy with a company you have some say in how this happens but when you leave it can get creative. Basically we do not buy into soft savings. If you can’t find it on the books it does not exist. We do not recognize savings beyond 12 months regardless of how long the process will continue. It gets way to ify beyond 12 months. I support the use of projections for a particular reason, if a team identifies a solution, from the time they identify it there is an opportunity for saving money. If you do a projection at that moment you have an opportunity for the next 12 months which should be compared to the realized savings. If for any reason they are not equivalent there is an inefficency in the implementation process (people seem to like to refer to this as a Gap Analysis – which is a nice word for measuring substandard performance.) Running to the press with these numbers seems like a premature something or another.
The savings thing is getting more interesting every day. When we show up on a Sales call or on a first deployment you can frequently get background from the websites about some of the people you will be meeting. You can tell there are people who will be in the meeting that have saved $20 gazillion dollars at XYZ corporation leading the SS deployment. It doesn’t take to long to figure out 1. They don’t know shit about it they just happened to be at XYZ corporation when somebody else did SS. 2. They were part of the support group that didn’t show up 3. They put it on their resume because it looked good at the time not because they believe in it 4. They are scared to death someone will be find out that their level of knowledge is as shallow as spit.
I think the accounting world has shown its colors recently and it is independent of SS. Unfortunately the solid performers don’t seem to have risen to the top and I do believe there are solid performers. The game players seem to be the ones who have moved up but that seems to be turning around. Parrotheads heard it a long time ago in the song “Gypsy’s in the Palace.”
As far as the people who get all puffed up over their new found knowledge, I agree they are a pain in the butt. It is a double edged sword though. They come busting in like INS at El Pollo Loco and expect everyone to be in awe of them. In general they are minority of the people but it does happen. This scenario has always been a problem with the quality field. Someone puts something up and they all get the testosterone flowing and try to find some stupid little flaw in the analysis. Nobody seems to focus on the fact that what they did worked.
I was with a guy who presented a paper around the Boston area. The project got good results. The capability analysis wasn’t perfectly normal but 80% of the observed points were outside the spec limit. It was predictable – hand goes up – that isn’t normal you can’t do a Capability Analysis on it. Two problems 1. he hadn’t run any test to see if it was normal – and it was a close call 2. when 80% of the observed points are outside the spec limits who cares – you can transform the data and 80% of the points will still be outside the spec limits. Just some BS “look at me” type response that is endemic to this discipline.
The good part is after the ritual dance and they know you have guns also they can’t claim ignorance. When you show them you have great capability, control, etc. if they wanted a discount because of it they should be willing to pay a premium to get it. Have them do a comparison betewwn the processes (Mean and variance not some pygmy potentates interpretation). If you have some good confidence in your process and your ability to control it put some type of graduated scale on it so when you are delivering at some capability you get some premium and if it drops you get less.
This is the same thing we do with revenue sharing SS contracts. They come in and they make a lot of statements about how they are different and they have already do this or that. We offer the revenue sharing and then it isn’t an issue. We only make money when they save money. Nobody has done revenue sharing yet. We have done guaranteed results though.
Is it a problem? I thinlk so. Is it indigenous to SS? I don’t think so. Same behavior as before just a different excuse for doing it.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17060
Posted by: John Sharpe
Posted on: Thursday, 15th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Withheld,
I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying regarding realized improvement results. I have a technician that performs $500 worth of revenue work in an 10 hour flex-day. The tech makes $20 per hour. Through process improvement, they can now complete that same work in an 8 hour day. Are you saying that the $40 is not real savings unless we realize additional revenue (or productivity in another area) during the other two hours?
John
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17064
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Thursday, 15th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
John,
I may be premature on this but my interpretation was that if we cut the technicians time on that project by say 5 hrs per day and he costs us $20 per hour then we have a $100 perday savings X the number of days we will run for the year gives us a savings figure. That figure is being claimed before it is realized. The claimed savings is being sent to magazines, newspapers, etc. as hard number when in fact most of it has not actually hit the bottom line yet.
My interpretation. I could very easily be wrong on this one.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17065
Posted by: Anna O’C
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Mike – Organizations have “homeostasis” just like organisms do. So they try to return to their previous state. That’s why change is hard unless the organization or system is deliberately desdigned and trained to accept change. That’s why eternal vigilance is the price of real improvement / process control.
In the context of the river analogy, changing the path of a rivulet takes energy in proportion to the flow rate and the resistance of the surrounding ground. It’s easier to erode mud than rocks, for instance. But over time, the oxbows in the river will become slow swampy, and at the next flood, you get a new channel (and one or more new islands) often right back where the old one was.
Mark – I too have a use for your river analogy in a public presentation and would like to give credit if you are in a position to accept it. You can contact me personally at AMOCcomcast.net, if you prefer not to give your full name in this forum.
Anna O’C (formerly Annonymous and now at liberty)
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17090
Posted by: Ovidiu Contras
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
I think the point is that even if you cut in half the time for doing a job ,unless you find some new additional-revenue job to fill the saved time , it will be very hard to show the saving to the bottom line …Am I wrong ?
Cheers
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17092
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Ovidiu, Withheld, John,
If that was the point – I need to get more sleep because it went right by me.
I don’t agree with that point. Two things happen 1. Products collect cost 2. Businesses collect cost.
If I cut time out of a product (which can be what the BB’s job is) then I take cost out. Pretty basic. May not have saved the business any cost but the product cost did go down. Basic Activity Based Costing – this is the part of the danger in using traditional accounting.
The business cost didn’t go down if I cut time but that is why we have Champions. A BB should not be responsible to run around and find something for a person to do. The Champions are responsible at the higher level and they can pull min the HR people or whatever infrastructure they choose to get these people onto something different.
Lets back up a little because I consider this a pretty poor example. People in most cases are not the primary cost driver in a product. I have had factories (electronics assembly) where my labor content was 5% and the management still wanted labor variance repoted monthly. I was a traditional metric, homeostasis.
Do a sensitivity analysis and figure it out. There isn’t any leverage in most cases focusing on headcount reductions. It is basic Pareto Analysis and the big bar is material.
Good luck.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17093
Posted by: Randall
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Mike,
You> Do a sensitivity analysis and figure it out. There isn’t any leverage in most cases focusing on headcount reductions. It is basic Pareto Analysis and the big bar is material.
I don’t think this is true for any transactional process. Here, the cost factor associated with employees is the major driver, which is the point the others were making.
I agree with them that — from a 30,000 foot view — if you eliminate 2 hours of work from a person in a process step and you don’t redeploy them in some other revenue producing work, then it’s a waste. It’s not realy savings to the business, which is the point of SS. I agree with you that it’s the Champion’s or Process Owner’s responsibility to redeploy the person, not the Black Belt.
Randall
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17094
Posted by: Withheld
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Hi John,
That is roughly what I am saying. In order for the loop to be closed, I believe you need to pass that $40 (or a portion of it) in savings on the the marketplace for the purpose of increasing market share and demand for your product over that of your competition.
Until that is accomplished, you have created a 2 hour vacuum in the workforce. It may not be a $40 vacuum, but it has a cost.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17095
Posted by: Jeff Perkey
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Mike,
I think Rajanga makes a very valid point with respect to shared vision, advocacy etc. For an organization to successfully implement any new program, espcially one as sweeping as six sigma would require that it have previously inculcated the concepts of a learning organization. As defined by Peter Senge in his book the Fifth Discipline these are systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning.
It is my opinion that these organizational skills are essential to the success of any quality initiative. The four major goals of the GE’s Work-Out program as described in the book, Six Sigma by Mikel Harry and Richard Schroeder seem to support this idea. The book specifically states that GE’s Work-Out initiative inculcated within GE’s culture an openess to new ideas and encouraged people to work together more productively and efficiently. These are the skills of re-thinking mental models and team learning espoused by Peter Senge.
I realize that this is a little off the topic of comparing and contrasting TQM and Six Sigms, but I feel it is significant and should not be over looked when considering the implementation of a program such as Six Sigma.
Respectfully,
Jeff
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17100
Posted by: Withheld
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Ovidiu accurately presented my position. We disagree here, Mike.
I wonder… does a 6S project claiming savings that cannot be found on the company’s bottom line differ from the sound made by a tree that falls in a deserted forest? Isn’t, “I did my part but ____ failed to follow through…” the very antithesis of teamwork?
If the point is to make lasting and real improvement, what is to be gained by claiming credit for something that did not happen?
The bottom line is vision and leadership in my view. Show me a CEO that puts marketing, purchasing, engineering and sales in the same boat rowing in the same direction and I will show you a a one-of-a-kind leader in a world full of butt coverers.
Call in 6S, TQM, common sense with a statistical vision… anything you want. Until such time as engineering can support it, marketing can design a sales pitch around it, sales can understand it to the point of presenting it to the customer, etc, etc, etc, all you’ve got at the end of the day is a very small part of the whole patting themselves on the back in a vacuum.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17101
Posted by: C Seider
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Mike, your comments are definitely to the point and valid in this whole section. I wonder when this quite volatile topic will simmer down with everyone (including myself I must admit) not adding too many more comments.
You seem to be a little harsher in tone than I imagine you mean to be. However, with regards to the BS factor, as having worked with you on a peripheral basis at one of the successful companies that Six Sigma Consultants helped launch 6s, I can attest to others that you are someone who is not full of BS and is great at sniffing out the BS factor in others.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17106
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Withheld,
We probably will have to differ on this.
As far as did you drop the cost of the product – yes you did. That was what the BB was given as a task and there was no failure to follow through. That was his function as part of the team.
The Champion or whoever they assign the interface of operation and strategic to still have the job of getting it out of the business. That is their function on the team. Just because you are part of team doesn’t mean you are accountable for every other function on that team.
If you have ever coached or watched kids playing t ball it is the antithesis of team work. The most difficult part is to get them to all to stop running to the ball whever it is hit. Team work is playing your position – that is why we have positions. The kids end up in a pile where the ball is and there is no one to throw it to. We did quotes the other day (Sam I still haven’t found this one) but Gretsky quote about “not skating to where the ball is but skating to where it is going to be.” That is team work – he trusted his team mates to do their jobs. Just like the person who takes the 4 hour savings.
If I am running a project and see an oppotyunity to take a half a headcount out of the process and don’t do it because it isn’t a whole person – that would be a completely stupid decision. You take what is sitting there and work through where you are left. The antithesis of team work would be to pass up the opportunity to take the savings because you could not trust on the rest of the team to cover their funtion.
As far as who claims what the half person is real in terms of product cost. As far as who claims what to the world I really would care if nobody ever reported another dollar in saving outside the company. We never did this to have a contest on who had the most savings. If you look back to the stuff we did in the late 80’s at Motorola, we never calculated savings. We took out defects because it was the right thing to do. You took the defect reduction ans what happened around it was another matter that got dealt with.
I can’t imagine having one of the automakers as a customer asking for their customary reduction in price on a product and refusing because I figured out how to get some labor out of the product, I just can’t get it out of the business.
Just my opinion.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17108
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
CS,
Thanks. I really didn’t mean it to have a harsh tone. Some of it may be coming out from some recent experiences withpeople who are showing up wrapped in a SS flag and treating suppliers who have a nice program, as if they were a second class citizen and criticizing their deployments (typically because it isn’t just like theirs).
I do understand the frustration with the people who invent savings. Although after Withhelds last response and mine – he may have me in that catagory.
I think overall any of the initiatives that quantify savings is better than the ones that don’t because it makes people at least cognizant of cost. As far as what the correct cost savings are, it does seem ambiguous but people predominately try to do the right thing.
I can’t think of any situation from your deployment I would have any trouble defending the savings or the improvements. It was a good combination of experienced leadership from the company, good talent in BB’s and we put some our best people on it. Overall it was a very clean deployment.
Thanks again. Good luck.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17110
Posted by: Withheld
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Not to worry, Mike. We disagree on the issue, but that does not change the fact that you impress me as the real deal.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17112
Posted by: Mike Carnell
Posted on: Friday, 16th August 2002
——————————————————————————–
Withheld,
Thanks. I was hoping you would be back. It is always nice to have people out there that are free thinkers and don’t buy into whatever dogma is being handed down.
When you look at the group that participates in the discussion group these days everybody is adding a twist and a different perspective and I think we have had some very healthy “agree to disagrees” over the last few months. That seems to be a pretty healthy situation and probably a more balanced discussion on a lot of topics.
You even have to check out some of Billybob’s stuff.
Do I remember correctly that you run a facility that is relatively small? Some of the latitude we gain in a large facility would definately be a more difficult issue to manage with less size.
Good luck
——————————————————————————–
Message: 17909
Posted by: Ron
Posted on: Wednesday, 11th September 2002
——————————————————————————–
As a practioner of both the key difference between TQM and six sigma is the infrastructure required to make six sigma successful, also the indespensable success fostered by proven leaders such as Jack Welch and Larry Bossidy.
When two of the largest corporation in the world adopt a methodology for continuous improvement the remainder fall in line.
Unfortunately six sigma can be bastardized by cloning and getting farther and farther away from the proven methodology pioneered at Motorola but really define by Allied Signal in the 90’s and followed on by GE in the late ninties.
However, even at GE some divisions ( Financial) have bastardized the basics fundamentals of sixsigma utilized in the manufacturing divisions of GE because they could not understand or chose to disregard the basic for a system that worked in their setting.
TQM had some very good points, it was just not packaged as well as six sigma and therefore it did not gain popular acceptance at the corporate head level.
The main difference is the methodology of six sigma and the resilience of the six sigma toolkit.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 19184
Posted by: jtucci
Posted on: Thursday, 17th October 2002
——————————————————————————–
Tim,
Here is my .02. The innovation of creating dedicated, full-time black belts is a big differentiator between Six Sigma and TQM. TQM assumed that with a little bit of training (typically 3 days) in problem solving tools everyone in the organization would begin to incorporate problem solving and data based decision-making into their daily work and be willing to participate on 6 – 12 month quality improvement projects.
Six Sigma recoginizes that getting to root cause and using statistical tools and methods is hard work and requires significantly more training and commitment of resources. Train someone well, tell them they are being paid to be full-time problem solvers and provide the support structure that has evolved into the current “best practice” Six Sigma deployment model and the results will follow.
Once you get to the “green belt” and “yellow belt” levels Six Sigma looks alot like TQM. It’s the Black Belts that deliver the goods in Six Sigma the rest is largely window dressing.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 19258
Posted by: Tim G (UK)
Posted on: Saturday, 19th October 2002
——————————————————————————–
Tim
it seems as though there are a lot of us doing a dissertation around six sigma. I have the following article to offer: Six sigma seen as a methodology for TQM, Klefsjo and Wiklund, Measuring Business Excellence Vol 5, Iss 1- which argues that ss is one of many tools in the TQM kit.
I have done some work for my thesis on culture and leadership and the fit/readiness for six sigma. I am now looking for literature on six sigma which cuts through the hype (including the benefits of SS over TQM / BPR etc). I would be glad to share views, problems and references with you.
My biggest problem will be to win senior management commitment for SS in a environment of firefighting, limited resources and training funding, initiative overload and cynicsm for SS.
When is your thesis due? Contact me at tim.griggsbaesystems.com if you want to explore these issues.
Good luck
Tim
——————————————————————————–
Message: 20353
Posted by: Syed
Posted on: Thursday, 14th November 2002
——————————————————————————–
You should not look at one vs. the other. They are both useful and contain similar imporovment methods. Focus on the use of improvement methods, not on making a comparsion, the two are only titles. It is like a being on the surface on an oceon, the interesting suff in deep down.
Syed
——————————————————————————–
Message: 20370
Posted by: Ron
Posted on: Thursday, 14th November 2002
——————————————————————————–
Don’t waste your time. You can put it in one sentance Six Sigma works, TQM didn’t.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 20526
Posted by: Syed
Posted on: Sunday, 17th November 2002
——————————————————————————–
Ron,
Please do your home work.
Syed
——————————————————————————–
Message: 21881
Posted by: Meidi
Posted on: Sunday, 29th December 2002
——————————————————————————–
Hi Tim,
I read your posting in isixsigma and was interested to your phrase “My biggest problem will be to win senior management commitment for SS in a environment of firefighting, limited resources and training funding, initiative overload and cynicsm for SS” (posted on Oct. 19, 2002).
I am from Indonesia, and six sigma here is really new. My CEO would like us to have six sigma as a tool to enhance company performance. The biggest problem is our company has limited resources and training funding, and also doesn’t have a quality control system yet.
I think, it would be easier for us to step in to six sigma if we have already had a quality control system in place. And now, I’m trying to convince him that it would be better for us to start with ISO first and some of Kaizen principal (or TQM? Or Lean Manufacturing?) before we start with six sigma. But I wonder whether my opinion is right or wrong?
My new company here is coming from traditionally company culture, and we (me and my CEO) have a plan to improve it, not in the revolutionary manner. Actually, what we need is a wand and abracadabra, but there is no such thing in this world.
All feedbacks and inputs would be highly appreciated.
Regards,
Meidi
——————————————————————————–
Message: 22055
Posted by: James Stout
Posted on: Monday, 6th January 2003
——————————————————————————–
In reference to the comment by Meidi, I agree that in order to achieve sustainable results, it behooves a company to have a robust quality system in place. The best current business model is ISO 9001:2000: flexible, business process oriented, and globally recognized.
Once you have a good foundation quality system in place, then as part of the obligation to undertake continuous process improvement, it makes sense to begin a six sigma effort.
I can be reached at jamespstoutyahoo.com if you would like to discuss the evolution of quality systems further.
Sincerely,
James Stout
——————————————————————————–
Message: 33143
Posted by: Ronald
Posted on: Saturday, 20th September 2003
——————————————————————————–
This is a great topic, because it is a classic ‘religious war’ TQM vs 6S.
My viewpoint is that 6S is based on a simple clear statistical analysis of approaching zero defects and that this is a much clearer goal than TQM.
Some one mentioned ISO9000 etc. My view is 90% bureaucracy and possibly 10% quality.
If you want real quality it is the overseas supplier in the following tale.
IBM placed an order for 2million components and specified a defect rate of 3 failed components per million.
The supplier was perplexed and assumed it was their difficulty with the English language.
They shipped the 2 million components and put the 6 defects requested in a separate pack with a ‘Perplexed Note’ to say here are the 6 defective components that you requested.
Quality is a state of mind. The objective is perfection and the satisfaction of doing a perfect job. The measurement of imperfection is to help get you their.
My field is software. I was in an environment where I wrote zero defect code. Then I started running a software business and my code got worse. Then I introduced various measurements and improvements, and focused on best practice.
Then I made redundant 80% of our people and we became productive again.
Now if I get to write code I try to focus and write zero defect code again, and just focus on this and nothing else, no measurements, no statistics, no overhead just quality work.
Just is it perfect, if so I am happy and content.
Regards – Ronald
PS Zero defects is very easy to measure.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 33155
Posted by: Tony Burns
Posted on: Sunday, 21st September 2003
——————————————————————————–
Yes, I agree “PS Zero defects is very easy to measure”. You may recall it’s a process called “Quality Assurance”. I understand that Quality Assurance was initially introduced in World War II when munitions were inspected and tested for defects after they were made. This was superceded by methodologies focussing on reducing variation in processes. Back to the future !
Dr Tony Burns
——————————————————————————–
Message: 39542
Posted by: Richard Duke
Posted on: Tuesday, 3rd February 2004
——————————————————————————–
Rajanga is on target. In many industries there is not the luxury of having very precise measurements for benchmarking and monitoring changes.
Healthcare is a perfect example. Although their are elements, Lab, Pharmacy, Radiology that can be measured this precisely but the overall subjectivity relative to the patient outcomes.
The elements that Rajanga listed are the core of all these methodologies and should be the key focus for determining the level of / appropriateness of Sixth Sigma, TQM, etc.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 39543
Posted by: Elaine
Posted on: Tuesday, 3rd February 2004
——————————————————————————–
The basic difference between six sigma and TQM in my mind is the reason that TQM didn’t work. It was often practiced from the top down. Management dictated the changes and the workerbees were expected to implement. Six Sigma, on the other hand, recognizes the importance of the worker (the real experts) in identifying and addressing quality and productivity problems.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 41034
Posted by: Pravin Guptha
Posted on: Friday, 27th February 2004
——————————————————————————–
After a stint as a Quality Assurance Team Leader focussing on Continuous Improvement (CI) as part of the ISO 9001:2000, i have picked up my books again to hone my continual improvement skills. In this connection i am reviewing the Six Sigma approach.
After a great deal of literature collection and research, i feel that within the framework of TQM based CI all the philosophies and methodologies of Six Sigma were established and engaged in our operations. As for ‘metrics’, although we have a mass production of products of 350 odd SKUs running in millions of pieces in a month, i have analysed defects of less then 3.14 per million in most instances.
Do manufacturing operations really need Six Sigma in the presence of TQM – CI based investigative Quality Assurance?
——————————————————————————–
Message: 41037
Posted by: Marco
Posted on: Friday, 27th February 2004
——————————————————————————–
The differences are one is called six sigma, the other tqm. The similarity is they are both completely useless to anyone other than those that make money peddling them.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 42203
Posted by: mman
Posted on: Thursday, 18th March 2004
——————————————————————————–
completely with RON,Adding to that :
*TQM:Fuzzy Concept—————–SS:Simple Message
**TQM:A General Goal(long term)—–SS:Ambitious (short-term)goal.
***TQM:Lot of Internal Barriers——–SS:Cross-Functional PM
****TQM:Incremental vs.Exponential change————————————————————SS:Incremental Exponential Change
*****TQM:Ineffective Training———-SS:Effective Training:
(BB,MBB,GB,YB…..etc)
Kind Regards, MMAN
——————————————————————————–
Message: 47099
Posted by: Skater
Posted on: Tuesday, 1st June 2004
——————————————————————————–
I highly suspect these responses (by Rajanga) were formulated using a text book. The exact phrase below was found in two of his messages:
“The organization needs excellence in process management and very well motivated employees to ensure that there is excellence in implementation throughout the organization.”
——————————————————————————–
Message: 47111
Posted by: SSNewby
Posted on: Tuesday, 1st June 2004
——————————————————————————–
So?
His/her saying, “The organization needs excellence in process management and very well motivated employees to ensure that there is excellence in implementation throughout the organization.” provides little actual insight or impact.
What’s your point?
——————————————————————————–
Message: 47250
Posted by: Raymond A. Monaco PhD
Posted on: Wednesday, 2nd June 2004
——————————————————————————–
I would reference Dr. Deming as a comparative to Six Sigma. I would also reference the definitive time discourse between the post modern TQM to the statically improved Six Sigma methodology. Modern TQM is similar to Six sigma, however there are various nuisances in the particular implementations. I’m not sure of you expertise with TQM but there are several consulting engagement models built around the TQM practice.
——————————————————————————–
Message: 47253
Posted by: SSNewby
Posted on: Wednesday, 2nd June 2004
——————————————————————————–
Dr. Monaco,
What is modern TQM? I did not know that there was an evolved TQM. Do you mean that it now has process and an infrastructure beyond the conceptual that provides for systematic process oriented action(s)? I was comfortable thinking of TQM as a well-intentioned amorphous blob of good ideas. Who is the recognized thought leader and what has been published? Your posting was more than a little obtuse.
SSNewby
——————————————————————————–
Message: 47274
Posted by: Jack Cawkwell
Posted on: Thursday, 3rd June 2004
——————————————————————————–
I worked with TQM/Ticket for nearly 10 years on telecommunications software in the 80’s and 90’s. There seems to be too much jargon and verbosity associated with the subject of quality methods. As far as I can tell all these different methods are the same. They attempt to record the customers view of the product, and use this to improve the quality (that is [obviously] a technical term relating to how closely the product meet the needs of the customer, not how good the product is in a general sense). To achieve this production processes must be known collectively, and be able to be changed incrementally. Measuring quality and deciding how to change processes may involve statistical methods.
Documentation is important but should not become over eloborate or more important than creating the product.
Would any one like to suggest that I am wrong about this. Is there something in 6 sigma that I have missed?
Jack
——————————————————————————–
Message: 47289
Posted by: Thomas C. Trible
Posted on: Thursday, 3rd June 2004
——————————————————————————–
Dr. Monaco:
Realizing that this thread is old, but questions about TQM vs. other quality initiatives persist today, I offer you this clarification.
For the record, the term “Total Quality Management” (TQM) was coined in 1985 by Department Of Navy (DON) quality experts. According to DON, “This term reflected the unique and comprehensive approach to planned organizational change being carried out within the DON. In October 1990, the Chief of Naval Operations changed the term “TQM” to “TQL” to reflect the unique role of leadership within the Department.”
When Dr. Deming was asked what were his views about TQM, his reply, “TQM?” “I don’t know what that is.”
——————————————————————————-
Message: 47323
Posted by: mjones
Posted on: Thursday, 3rd June 2004
——————————————————————————–
Not that it matters, but I can assure you that on this particular day, Darth and SSNEWBY were NOT the same person.
You know, I find that if you just focus on content and ignore the personalities, things work out better. Consider Dr. Deming for example, a most brilliant man who had a personality that, to some degree, hampered his effectiveness. That’s was his problem. But to let his personality hinder my learning, was MY problem. (And, honestly, it was a problem I had… for a while.)
There are a lot of brilliant folks out there that we can learn from. To attack or ignore them because of their personalities? Not a bright move!! Plus, they have lots of practice in defending themselves. Besides, I find some of them can even be kind of cool folks on a one-on-one level — like, when they are not under the pressure of the spotlight.
Cheers!
