Six Sigma is a set of techniques and tools for process improvement.

It was introduced by engineer

Bill Smith while working at Motorola in 1986.[1][2] Jack Welch made it central to his business strategy
at General Electric in 1995.[3] Today, it is used in many industrial sectors.[4]
Six Sigma seeks to improve the quality of the output of a process by identifying and removing the
causes of defects and minimizing variability in manufacturing and business processes. It uses a set
of quality management methods, mainly empirical, statistical methods, and creates a special
infrastructure of people within the organization, who are experts in these methods. Each Six Sigma
project carried out within an organization follows a defined sequence of steps and has specific value
targets, for example: reduce process cycle time, reduce pollution, reduce costs, increase customer
satisfaction, and increase profits.
The term Six Sigma originated from terminology associated with statistical modeling of
manufacturing processes. The maturity of a manufacturing process can be described by
a sigma rating indicating its yield or the percentage of defect-free products it creates. A six sigma
process is one in which 99.99966% of all opportunities to produce some feature of a part are
statistically expected to be free of defects (3.4 defective features per million opportunities), although
this defect level corresponds to only a 4.5 sigma level. Motorola set a goal of "six sigma" for all of its
manufacturing operations, and this goal became a by-word for the management and engineering
practices used to achieve it.

Doctrine
Six Sigma doctrine asserts:

Continuous efforts to achieve stable and predictable process results (e.g. by

reducing process variation) are of vital importance to business success.
Manufacturing and business processes have characteristics that can be measured,
analyzed, controlled and improved.
Achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the entire
organization, particularly from top-level management.
Features that set Six Sigma apart from previous quality-improvement initiatives
include:

A clear focus on achieving measurable and quantifiable financial returns from any
Six Sigma project.
An increased emphasis on strong and passionate management leadership and
support.

A clear commitment to making decisions on the basis of verifiable data and

statistical methods, rather than assumptions and guesswork.
The term "six sigma" comes from statistics and is used in statistical quality control,
which evaluates process capability. Originally, it referred to the ability of
manufacturing processes to produce a very high proportion of output within
specification. Processes that operate with "six sigma quality" over the short term
are assumed to produce long-term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million
opportunities (DPMO).[5][6] Six Sigma's implicit goal is to improve all processes, but
not to the 3.4 DPMO level necessarily. Organizations need to determine an
appropriate sigma level for each of their most important processes and strive to
achieve these. As a result of this goal, it is incumbent on management of the
organization to prioritize areas of improvement.

"Six Sigma" was registered June 11, 1991 as U.S. Service Mark 74,026,418. In 2005
Motorola attributed over US$17 billion in savings to Six Sigma.[7]

Other early adopters of Six Sigma include Honeywell (previously known as

AlliedSignal) and General Electric, where Jack Welch introduced the method.[8] By
the late 1990s, about two-thirds of the Fortune 500 organizations had begun Six
Sigma initiatives with the aim of reducing costs and improving quality.[9]

In recent years, some practitioners have combined Six Sigma ideas with lean
manufacturing to create a methodology named Lean Six Sigma.[10] The Lean Six
Sigma methodology views lean manufacturing, which addresses process flow and
waste issues, and Six Sigma, with its focus on variation and design, as
complementary disciplines aimed at promoting "business and operational
excellence".[10] Companies such as GE,[11] Verizon, GENPACT, and IBM use Lean
Six Sigma to focus transformation efforts not just on efficiency but also on growth. It
serves as a foundation for innovation throughout the organization, from
manufacturing and software development to sales and service delivery functions.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published in 2011 the
first standard "ISO 13053:2011" defining a Six Sigma process.[12] Other "standards"
are created mostly by universities or companies that have so-called first-party
certification programs for Six Sigma.

Difference between related concepts

Lean management and Six Sigma are two concepts which share similar
methodologies and tools. Both programs are of Japanese origin, but they are two

different programs. Lean management is focused on eliminating waste and ensuring

swift while Six Sigma's focus is on eliminating defects and reducing variability.
Methodologies
Six Sigma projects follow two project methodologies inspired by Deming's Plan-Do-Check-Act
Cycle. These methodologies, composed of five phases each, bear the acronyms DMAIC and
DMADV.[9]

DMAIC ("duh-may-ick", /d.me.k/) is used for projects aimed at improving an existing

business process.[9]

DMADV ("duh-mad-vee", /d.md.vi/) is used for projects aimed at creating new product or
process designs.[9]

DMAIC[edit]

The five steps of DMAIC

Main article: DMAIC

The DMAIC project methodology has five phases:

Define the system, the voice of the customer and their requirements, and the project goals,
specifically.

Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data; calculate the 'as-is'
Process Capability.

Analyze the data to investigate and verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the
relationships are, and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered. Seek out root
cause of the defect under investigation.

Improve or optimize the current process based upon data analysis using techniques such
as design of experiments, poka yoke or mistake proofing, and standard work to create a new,
future state process. Set up pilot runs to establish process capability.

Control the future state process to ensure that any deviations from the target are corrected
before they result in defects. Implement control systems such as statistical process control,
production boards, visual workplaces, and continuously monitor the process.

Some organizations add a Recognize step at the beginning, which is to recognize the right problem
to work on, thus yielding an RDMAIC methodology.[13]

DMADV or DFSS[edit]

The five steps of DMADV

Main article: DFSS

The DMADV project methodology, known as DFSS ("Design For Six Sigma"),[9] features five phases:

Define design goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise strategy.

Measure and identify CTQs (characteristics that are Critical To Quality), measure product
capabilities, production process capability, and measure risks.

Analyze to develop and design alternatives

Design an improved alternative, best suited per analysis in the previous step

Verify the design, set up pilot runs, implement the production process and hand it over to the
process owner(s).

Quality management tools and methods[edit]

Within the individual phases of a DMAIC or DMADV project, Six Sigma utilizes many established
quality-management tools that are also used outside Six Sigma. The following table shows an
overview of the main methods used.

5 Whys

Statistical and fitting tools

Analysis of variance

General linear model

ANOVA Gauge R&R

Regression analysis

Correlation

Scatter diagram

Chi-squared test

Axiomatic design

Business Process Mapping/Check sheet

Cause & effects diagram (also known as fishbone or Ishikawa diagram)

Control chart/Control plan (also known as a swimlane map)/Run charts

Cost-benefit analysis

CTQ tree

Design of experiments/Stratification

Histograms/Pareto analysis/Pareto chart

Pick chart/Process capability/Rolled throughput yield

Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

Quantitative marketing research through use of Enterprise Feedback Management(EFM)

systems

Root cause analysis

SIPOC analysis (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers)

COPIS analysis (Customer centric version/perspective of SIPOC)

Taguchi methods/Taguchi Loss Function

Value stream mapping

Implementation roles

One key innovation of Six Sigma involves the absolute "professionalizing" of quality management
functions. Prior to Six Sigma, quality management in practice was largely relegated to the production
floor and to statisticians in a separate quality department. Formal Six Sigma programs adopt a kind
of elite ranking terminology (similar to some martial arts systems, like Kung-Fu and Judo) to define a
hierarchy (and special career path) that includes all business functions and levels.
Six Sigma identifies several key roles for its successful implementation. [14]

Executive Leadership includes the CEO and other members of top management. They are
responsible for setting up a vision for Six Sigma implementation. They also empower the other
role holders with the freedom and resources to explore new ideas for breakthrough
improvements by transcending departmental barriers and overcoming inherent resistance to
change.[15]

Champions take responsibility for Six Sigma implementation across the organization in an
integrated manner. The Executive Leadership draws them from upper management. Champions
also act as mentors to Black Belts.

Master Black Belts, identified by Champions, act as in-house coaches on Six Sigma. They
devote 100% of their time to Six Sigma. They assist Champions and guide Black Belts and
Green Belts. Apart from statistical tasks, they spend their time on ensuring consistent application
of Six Sigma across various functions and departments.

Black Belts operate under Master Black Belts to apply Six Sigma methodology to specific
projects. They devote 100% of their valued time to Six Sigma. They primarily focus on Six Sigma
project execution and special leadership with special tasks, whereas Champions and Master
Black Belts focus on identifying projects/functions for Six Sigma.

Green Belts are the employees who take up Six Sigma implementation along with their other
job responsibilities, operating under the guidance of Black Belts.

Special training is needed[16] for all of these practitioners to ensure that they follow the methodology
and use the data-driven approach correctly. This training is very important [citation needed].
Some organizations use additional belt colours, such as Yellow Belts, for employees that have basic
training in Six Sigma tools and generally participate in projects and "White belts" for those locally
trained in the concepts but do not participate in the project team. "Orange belts" are also mentioned
to be used for special cases.[17]

Certification
General Electric and Motorola developed certification programs as part of their Six
Sigma implementation, verifying individuals' command of the Six Sigma methods at
the relevant skill level (Green Belt, Black Belt etc.). Following this approach, many
organizations in the 1990s started offering Six Sigma certifications to their
employees.[9][18] Criteria for Green Belt and Black Belt certification vary; some
companies simply require participation in a course and a Six Sigma project.[18]
There is no standard certification body, and different certification services are
offered by various quality associations and other providers against a fee.[19][20]
The American Society for Quality for example requires Black Belt applicants to pass
a written exam and to provide a signed affidavit stating that they have completed
two projects or one project combined with three years' practical experience in the
body of knowledge.
Etymology of Six Sigma Process
The term "six sigma process" comes from the notion that if one has six standard deviations between
the process mean and the nearest specification limit, as shown in the graph, practically no[not in citation
given]

items will fail to meet specifications.[5] This is based on the calculation method employed

in process capability studies.

Capability studies measure the number of standard deviations between the process mean and the
nearest specification limit in sigma units, represented by the Greek letter (sigma). As process
standard deviation goes up, or the mean of the process moves away from the center of the
tolerance, fewer standard deviations will fit between the mean and the nearest specification limit,
decreasing the sigma number and increasing the likelihood of items outside specification. One
should also note that calculation of Sigma levels for a process data is independent of the data being
normally distributed. In one of the criticisms to Six Sigma, practitioners using this approach spend a
lot of time transforming data from non-normal to normal using transformation techniques. It must be
said that Sigma levels can be determined for process data that has evidence of non-normality.[5]

Graph of the normal distribution, which underlies the statistical assumptions of the Six Sigma model. The Greek
letter (sigma) marks the distance on the horizontal axis between the mean, , and the curve's inflection point.
The greater this distance, the greater is the spread of values encountered. For the green curve shown above,
= 0 and = 1. The upper and lower specification limits (USL and LSL, respectively) are at a distance of 6 from
the mean. Because of the properties of the normal distribution, values lying that far away from the mean are
extremely unlikely. Even if the mean were to move right or left by 1.5 at some point in the future (1.5 sigma
shift, coloured red and blue), there is still a good safety cushion. This is why Six Sigma aims to have processes
where the mean is at least 6 away from the nearest specification limit.

Role of the 1.5 sigma shift[edit]

Experience has shown that processes usually do not perform as well in the long term as they do in
the short term.[5] As a result, the number of sigmas that will fit between the process mean and the
nearest specification limit may well drop over time, compared to an initial short-term study.[5] To
account for this real-life increase in process variation over time, an empirically-based 1.5 sigma shift
is introduced into the calculation.[5][22] According to this idea, a process that fits 6 sigma between the
process mean and the nearest specification limit in a short-term study will in the long term fit only 4.5
sigma either because the process mean will move over time, or because the long-term standard
deviation of the process will be greater than that observed in the short term, or both. [5]
Hence the widely accepted definition of a six sigma process is a process that produces 3.4 defective
parts per million opportunities (DPMO). This is based on the fact that a process that is normally
distributed will have 3.4 parts per million outside the limits, when the limits are six sigma from the
"original" mean of zero and the process mean is then shifted by 1.5 sigma (and therefore, the six
sigma limits are no longer symmetrical about the mean).[5] The former six sigma distribution, when
under the effect of the 1.5 sigma shift, is commonly referred to as a 4.5 sigma process. However, it
should be noted that the failure rate of a six sigma distribution with the mean shifted 1.5 sigma is not
equivalent to the failure rate of a 4.5 sigma process with the mean centered on zero. [5] This allows for
the fact that special causes may result in a deterioration in process performance over time and is
designed to prevent underestimation of the defect levels likely to be encountered in real-life
operation.[5]

The role of the sigma shift is mainly academic. The purpose of six sigma is to generate
organizational performance improvement. It is up to the organization to determine, based on
customer expectations, what the appropriate sigma level of a process is. The purpose of the sigma
value is as a comparative figure to determine whether a process is improving, deteriorating, stagnant
or non-competitive with others in the same business. Six sigma (3.4 DPMO) is not the goal of all
processes.

Sigma levels[edit]

A control chart depicting a process that experienced a 1.5 sigma drift in the process mean toward the upper
specification limit starting at midnight. Control charts are used to maintain 6 sigma quality by signaling when
quality professionals should investigate a process to find and eliminate special-cause variation.

See also: Three sigma rule

The table below gives long-term DPMO values corresponding to various short-term sigma levels. [23][24]
These figures assume that the process mean will shift by 1.5 sigma toward the side with the critical
specification limit. In other words, they assume that after the initial study determining the short-term
sigma level, the long-term Cpk valuewill turn out to be 0.5 less than the short-term Cpk value. So, for
example, the DPMO figure given for 1 sigma assumes that the long-term process mean will be 0.5
sigma beyond the specification limit (Cpk = 0.17), rather than 1 sigma within it, as it was in the shortterm study (Cpk = 0.33). Note that the defect percentages indicate only defects exceeding the
specification limit to which the process mean is nearest. Defects beyond the far specification limit are
not included in the percentages.

Sigma

Sigma (with

level

1.5 shift)

DPMO

Percent

Percentage

Short-

Long-

defective

yield

term Cpk

term Cpk

0.5

691,462 69%

31%

0.33

0.17

0.5

308,538 31%

69%

0.67

0.17

1.5

66,807

6.7%

93.3%

1.00

0.5

2.5

6,210

0.62%

99.38%

1.33

0.83

3.5

233

0.023%

99.977%

1.67

1.17

4.5

3.4

0.00034%

99.99966%

2.00

1.5

5.5

0.019

0.0000019%

99.9999981%

2.33

1.83

Software[edit]
Main article: List of Six Sigma software packages

Application[edit]
Main article: List of Six Sigma companies
Six Sigma mostly finds application in large organizations.[25] An important factor in the spread of Six
Sigma was GE's 1998 announcement of $350 million in savings thanks to Six Sigma, a figure that
later grew to more than $1 billion.[25] According to industry consultants like Thomas Pyzdek and John
Kullmann, companies with fewer than 500 employees are less suited to Six Sigma implementation or
need to adapt the standard approach to make it work for them.[25] Six Sigma however contains a
large number of tools and techniques that work well in small to mid-size organizations. The fact that
an organization is not big enough to be able to afford Black Belts does not diminish its abilities to
make improvements using this set of tools and techniques. The infrastructure described as

necessary to support Six Sigma is a result of the size of the organization rather than a requirement
of Six Sigma itself.[25]

Criticism[edit]
Lack of originality[edit]
Quality control analyst Joseph M. Juran described Six Sigma as "a basic version of quality
improvement", stating that "there is nothing new there. It includes what we used to call facilitators.
They've adopted more flamboyant terms, like belts with different colors. I think that concept has merit
to set apart, to create specialists who can be very helpful. Again, that's not a new idea.
The American Society for Quality long ago established certificates, such as
for reliability engineers."[26]

Role of consultants[edit]
The use of "Black Belts" as itinerant change agents has fostered an industry of training and
certification. Critics have argued there is overselling of Six Sigma by too great a number of
consulting firms, many of which claim expertise in Six Sigma when they have only a rudimentary
understanding of the tools and techniques involved or the markets or industries in which they are
acting.[27]

Potential negative effects[edit]

A Fortune article stated that "of 58 large companies that have announced Six Sigma programs, 91
percent have trailed the S&P 500 since". The statement was attributed to "an analysis by Charles
Holland of consulting firm Qualpro (which espouses a competing quality-improvement process)".
[28]

The summary of the article is that Six Sigma is effective at what it is intended to do, but that it is

"narrowly designed to fix an existing process" and does not help in "coming up with new products or
disruptive technologies."[29][30]
Over-reliance on statistical tools[edit]
A more direct criticism is the "rigid" nature of Six Sigma with its over-reliance on methods and tools.
In most cases, more attention is paid to reducing variation and searching for any significant factors
and less attention is paid to developing robustness in the first place (which can altogether eliminate
the need for reducing variation).[31] The extensive reliance on significance testing and use of multiple
regression techniques increases the risk of making commonly-unknown types of statistical errors or
mistakes. A possible consequence of Six Sigma's array of P-value misconceptions is the false belief
that the probability of a conclusion being in error can be calculated from the data in a single
experiment without reference to external evidence or the plausibility of the underlying mechanism.
[32]

One of the most serious but all-too-common misuses of inferential statistics is to take a model that

was developed through exploratory model building and subject it to the same sorts of statistical tests
that are used to validate a model that was specified in advance. [33]
Another comment refers to the often mentioned Transfer Function, which seems to be a flawed
theory if looked at in detail.[34] Since significance tests were first popularized many objections have
been voiced by prominent and respected statisticians. The volume of criticism and rebuttal has filled
books with language seldom used in the scholarly debate of a dry subject. [35][36][37][38] Much of the first
criticism was already published more than 40 years ago. Refer to: Statistical hypothesis
testing#Criticism for details.
Articles featuring critics have appeared in the NovemberDecember 2006 issue of USA Army
Logistician regarding Six-Sigma: "The dangers of a single paradigmatic orientation (in this case, that
of technical rationality) can blind us to values associated with double-loop learning and the learning
organization, organization adaptability, workforce creativity and development, humanizing the
workplace, cultural awareness, and strategy making."[39]
Nassim Nicholas Taleb consider risk managers little more than "blind users" of statistical tools and
methods.[40] He states that statistics is fundamentally incomplete as a field as it cannot predict the risk
of rare events something Six Sigma is specially concerned with. Furthermore, errors in prediction
are likely to occur as a result of ignorance for or distinction between epistemic and other
uncertainties. These errors are the biggest in time variant (reliability) related failures.[41]
Stifling creativity in research environments[edit]
A BusinessWeek article says that James McNerney's introduction of Six Sigma at 3M had the effect
of stifling creativity and reports its removal from the research function. It cites two Wharton
School professors who say that Six Sigma leads to incremental innovation at the expense of blue
skies research.[42] This phenomenon is further explored in the book Going Lean, which describes a
related approach known as lean dynamics and provides data to show that Ford's "6 Sigma" program
did little to change its fortunes.[43]
According to an article by John Dodge, editor in chief of Design News, use of Six Sigma is
inappropriate in a research environment. Dodge states[44] "excessive metrics, steps, measurements
and Six Sigma's intense focus on reducing variability water down the discovery process. Under Six
Sigma, the free-wheeling nature of brainstorming and the serendipitous side of discovery is stifled."
He concludes "there's general agreement that freedom in basic or pure research is preferable while
Six Sigma works best in incremental innovation when there's an expressed commercial goal."

Lack of systematic documentation[edit]

One criticism voiced by Yasar Jarrar and Andy Neely from the Cranfield School of Management's
Centre for Business Performance is that while Six Sigma is a powerful approach, it can also unduly

dominate an organization's culture; and they add that much of the Six Sigma literature in a
remarkable way (six-sigma claims to be evidence, scientifically based) lacks academic rigor:
One final criticism, probably more to the Six Sigma literature than concepts, relates to the evidence
for Six Sigmas success. So far, documented case studies using the Six Sigma methods are
presented as the strongest evidence for its success. However, looking at these documented cases,
and apart from a few that are detailed from the experience of leading organizations like GE and
Motorola, most cases are not documented in a systemic or academic manner. In fact, the majority
are case studies illustrated on websites, and are, at best, sketchy. They provide no mention of any
specific Six Sigma methods that were used to resolve the problems. It has been argued that by
relying on the Six Sigma criteria, management is lulled into the idea that something is being done
about quality, whereas any resulting improvement is accidental (Latzko 1995). Thus, when looking at
the evidence put forward for Six Sigma success, mostly by consultants and people with vested
interests, the question that begs to be asked is: are we making a true improvement with Six Sigma
methods or just getting skilled at telling stories? Everyone seems to believe that we are making true
improvements, but there is some way to go to document these empirically and clarify the causal
relations.
[31]

1.5 sigma shift[edit]

The statistician Donald J. Wheeler has dismissed the 1.5 sigma shift as "goofy" because of its
arbitrary nature.[45] Its universal applicability is seen as doubtful.
The 1.5 sigma shift has also become contentious because it results in stated "sigma levels" that
reflect short-term rather than long-term performance: a process that has long-term defect levels
corresponding to 4.5 sigma performance is, by Six Sigma convention, described as a "six sigma
process."[5][46] The accepted Six Sigma scoring system thus cannot be equated to actual normal
distribution probabilities for the stated number of standard deviations, and this has been a key bone
of contention over how Six Sigma measures are defined.[46] The fact that it is rarely explained that a
"6 sigma" process will have long-term defect rates corresponding to 4.5 sigma performance rather
than actual 6 sigma performance has led several commentators to express the opinion that Six
Sigma is a confidence trick.[5]

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma