Skip to main content

One of the guiding principles behind Six Sigma is that variation in a process creates waste and errors. Eliminating variation, then, will make...

On the surface, this idea sounds very appealing. Who wouldn't want to eliminate waste, eliminate error, and make their processes more effective? The goals of this idea are admirable and useful. Where they apply, they are great things.


This idea does not apply everywhere, however, and trying to make it apply everywhere is a very bad idea. Start with one of the most basic concerns: this idea applies to mechanical processes like manufacturing, but it does not apply easily to other processes. Imagine, for example, trying to apply a focus on removing variation to an industry with a lot of variation, like medicine. A doctor can only apply certain tests, because people can only have certain diseases? That logic is laughable. The push-back against standardized testing shows how removing variation creates trouble in education. Children aren't all the same age, and don't mature at the same pace. Even if they are in the same grade, they don't learn the same way. That applies to adults as well, and so any organization focusing on customer service would get in its own way if it insisted on removing variation.


There are also more complex objections to applying Six Sigma methodology to organizations, even those which focus on mechanical production, like factories. One of these is that Six Sigma applies well to mature processes that are well-understood, but doesn't apply to developing processes or development processes, like innovation or research. To spell out this objection, it makes great sense to try to remove variation when you have an assembly line and are actually producing, say, cars. It makes less sense to remove variation when you are trying to create new ideas. Stages like brainstorming require variation, so applying Six Sigma too broadly throughout an organization or too early in a process could cripple an organization. Six Sigma works well with mature processes, not developmental or emerging processes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more