Six Sigma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Six Sigma (6σ) is a set of techniques and tools for process improvement. It was introduced by engineers Bill Smith &
Mikel J Harry while working at Motorola in 1986.[1][2] Jack Welch made it central to his business strategy at General
Electric in 1995.

It 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 (capitalized because it was written that way when registered as a Motorola trademark on December
28, 1993) 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). 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.

Contents
◾ 1 Doctrine
◾ 2 Difference between related concepts
◾ 3 Methodologies
◾ 3.1 DMAIC
◾ 3.2 DMADV or DFSS
◾ 3.3 Quality management tools and methods
◾ 4 Implementation roles
◾ 4.1 Certification
◾ 5 Etymology of "six sigma process"
◾ 6 Role of the 1.5 sigma shift
◾ 6.1 Sigma levels
◾ 7 Software
◾ 8 Application
◾ 9 Criticism
◾ 9.1 Lack of originality
◾ 9.2 Inadequate for complex manufacturing
◾ 9.3 Role of consultants
◾ 9.4 Potential negative effects
◾ 9.4.1 Over-reliance on statistical tools
◾ 9.4.2 Stifling creativity in research environments
◾ 9.5 Lack of systematic documentation
◾ 9.6 1.5 sigma shift
◾ 10 See also
◾ 11 References

Page 1 of 13
 ◾ 12 Further reading

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
defined, measured, analyzed, improved, and controlled.
◾ Achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the
entire organization, particularly from top-level management.
The common Six Sigma symbol
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).[3][4] 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 1,647,704 (http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?
regser=serial&entry=1647704). In 2005 Motorola attributed over US$17 billion in savings to Six Sigma.[5]

Other early adopters of Six Sigma include Honeywell and General Electric, where Jack Welch introduced the method.
[6]
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.[7]

In recent years, some practitioners have combined Six Sigma ideas with lean manufacturing to create a methodology
named Lean Six Sigma.[8] 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".[8] Companies such as GE,[9] Accenture, 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.[10] Other "standards" are created mostly by universities or companies that have so-called
first-party certification programs for Six Sigma.

Page 2 of 13
Difference between related concepts
Lean management and Six Sigma are two concepts which share similar methodologies and tools. Both programs are
Japanese influenced, but they are two different programs. Lean management is focused on eliminating waste and
ensuring efficiency 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.[7]

◾ DMAIC ("duh-may-ick", /dʌ.ˈmeɪ.ɪk/) is used for projects aimed at improving an existing business process.[7]
◾ DMADV ("duh-mad-vee", /dʌ.ˈmæd.vi/) is used for projects aimed at creating new product or process designs.[7]

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. The five steps of DMAIC
◾ 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. This process is repeated until the desired quality level is obtained.

Some organizations add a Recognize step at the beginning, which is to recognize the right problem to work on, thus
yielding an RDMAIC methodology.[11]

DMADV or DFSS

The DMADV project methodology, known as

DFSS ("Design For Six Sigma"),[7] features five
phases:

◾ Define design goals that are consistent with

customer demands and the enterprise
strategy. The five steps of DMADV
◾ 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
Page 3 of 13
 ◾ 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

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 ◾ CTQ tree

◾ Statistical and fitting tools ◾ Design of experiments/Stratification
◾ Analysis of variance ◾ Histograms/Pareto analysis/Pareto chart
◾ General linear model ◾ Pick chart/Process capability/Rolled throughput
◾ ANOVA Gauge R&R yield
◾ Regression analysis ◾ Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
◾ Correlation ◾ Quantitative marketing research through use of
◾ Scatter diagram Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM) systems
◾ Chi-squared test ◾ Root cause analysis
◾ Axiomatic design ◾ SIPOC analysis (Suppliers, Inputs, Process,
◾ Business Process Mapping/Check sheet Outputs, Customers)
◾ Cause & effects diagram (also known as fishbone or ◾ COPIS analysis (Customer centric
Ishikawa diagram) version/perspective of SIPOC)
◾ Control chart/Control plan (also known as a ◾ Taguchi methods/Taguchi Loss Function
swimlane map)/Run charts ◾ Value stream mapping
◾ Cost-benefit analysis

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 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.[12]

◾ 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.[13]
◾ 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.

Page 4 of 13
According to proponents of the system, special training is needed[14] for all of these practitioners to ensure that they
follow the methodology and use the data-driven approach correctly.

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.[15]

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.[7][16] Criteria for
Green Belt and Black Belt certification vary; some companies simply require participation in a course and a Six Sigma
project.[16] There is no standard certification body, and different certification services are offered by various quality
associations and other providers against a fee.[17][18] 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.[16][19]

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 items will fail to meet specifications.[3] 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 σ (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.[3]

Page 5 of 13
  
Graph of the normal distribution, which underlies the statistical assumptions of the Six
Sigma model. In the centre at 0, the Greek letter µ (mu) marks the mean, with the
horizontal axis showing distance from the mean, marked in standard deviations and
given the letter σ (sigma). The greater the standard deviation, the greater is the spread
of values encountered. For the green curve shown above, µ = 0 and σ = 1. The upper
and lower specification limits (marked USL and LSL) are at a distance of 6σ from the
mean. Because of the properties of the normal distribution, values lying that far away
from the mean are extremely unlikely: approximately 1 in a billion too low, and the
same too high. Even if the mean were to move right or left by 1.5σ 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 6σ away from the
nearest specification limit.

Role of the 1.5 sigma shift

Experience has shown that processes usually do not perform as well in the long term as they do in the short term.[3] 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.[3] To account for this real-life increase in process variation over
time, an empirically based 1.5 sigma shift is introduced into the calculation.[3][20] 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.[3]

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).[3] 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.[3] 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.[3]

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.

Page 6 of 13
Sigma levels

The table below gives long-term DPMO values

corresponding to various short-term sigma levels.[21][22]

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
value will 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 short-term 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.

The formula used here to calculate the DPMO is thus

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.

Sigma Sigma (with 1.5σ Percent Percentage Short-term Long-term

DPMO
level shift) defective yield Cpk Ppk
1 −0.5 691,462 69% 31% 0.33 −0.17
2 0.5 308,538 31% 69% 0.67 0.17
3 1.5 66,807 6.7% 93.3% 1.00 0.5
4 2.5 6,210 0.62% 99.38% 1.33 0.83
5 3.5 233 0.023% 99.977% 1.67 1.17
6 4.5 3.4 0.00034% 99.99966% 2.00 1.5
7 5.5 0.019 0.0000019% 99.9999981% 2.33 1.83

Software
Application
Six Sigma mostly finds application in large organizations.[23] 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.[23]
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.[23] Six
Sigma however contains a large number of tools and techniques that work well in small to mid-size organizations. The
Page 7 of 13
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.[23]

Criticism
Lack of originality

Quality expert 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."[24]

Inadequate for complex manufacturing

Quality expert Philip B. Crosby pointed out that the Six Sigma standard doesn't go far enough[25]—customers deserve
defect-free products every time. For example, under the Six Sigma standard, semiconductors which require the flawless
etching of millions of tiny circuits onto a single chip are all 100% unusable.[26]

Role of consultants

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

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

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]

Page 8 of 13
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 November–December 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 considers 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

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[42] "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."

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.[43] 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.[44]

Lack of systematic documentation

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
Sigma’s 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

Page 9 of 13
 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

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."[3][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.[3]

See also
◾ Design for Six Sigma
◾ DMAIC
◾ Kaizen – a philosophical focus on continuous improvement of processes
◾ Lean Six Sigma
◾ Lean Manufacturing
◾ Management fad
◾ Total productive maintenance
◾ Total quality management
◾ W. Edwards Deming

References
1. "The Inventors of Six
Sigma" (https://web.archive.org/web/20051106025733/http://www.motorola.com/content/0,,3079,00.html). Archived from
the original (https://www.motorola.com/content/0,,3079,00.html) on 2005-11-06. Retrieved 2006-01-29.
2. Tennant, Geoff (2001). SIX SIGMA: SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and Services (https://books.google.com/books?
id=O6276jidG3IC&printsec=frontcover#PPA6,M1). Gower Publishing, Ltd. p. 6. ISBN 0-566-08374-4.
3. Tennant, Geoff (2001). SIX SIGMA: SPC and TQM in Manufacturing and Services (https://books.google.com/books?
id=O6276jidG3IC&printsec=frontcover#PPA25,M1). Gower Publishing, Ltd. p. 25. ISBN 0-566-08374-4.
4. "Motorola University Six Sigma
Dictionary" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060128110005/http://www.motorola.com/content/0,,3074-5804,00.html#ss).
Archived from the original (https://www.motorola.com/content/0,,3074-5804,00.html#ss) on 2006-01-28. Retrieved
2006-01-29.
5. "About Motorola University" (https://web.archive.org/web/20051222081924/http://www.motorola.com/content/0,,3071-
5801,00.html). Archived from the original (https://www.motorola.com/content/0,,3071-5801,00.html) on 2005-12-22.
Retrieved 2006-01-28.
6. "Six Sigma: Where is it now?" (http://scm.ncsu.edu/public/facts/facs030624.html). Retrieved 2008-05-22.
7. De Feo, Joseph A.; Barnard, William (2005). JURAN Institute's Six Sigma Breakthrough and Beyond – Quality Performance
Breakthrough Methods. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. ISBN 0-07-059881-9.

Page 10 of 13
 8. Walshe, Kieran; Harvey, Gill; Jas, Pauline (15 November 2010). Connecting Knowledge and Performance in Public Services:
From Knowing to Doing (https://books.google.com/books?id=IjBozd3KJ1cC&pg=PA175). Cambridge University Press.
p. 175. ISBN 978-0-521-19546-1. Retrieved 2011-08-22.
9. "verizon" (http://www.trainingmag.com/content/2013-training-top-125-verizon%E2%80%99s-1-calling).
10. "ISO 13053:2011" (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=52901). ISO.
11. Webber, Larry; Wallace, Michael (15 December 2006). Quality Control for Dummies (https://books.google.com/books?
id=9BWkxto2fcEC&pg=PA43). For Dummies. pp. 42–43. ISBN 978-0-470-06909-7. Retrieved 2012-05-16.
12. Harry, Mikel; Schroeder, Richard (2000). Six Sigma. Random House, Inc. ISBN 0-385-49437-8.
13. "Six sigma support from upper management" (http://www.6sigma.us/six-sigma-articles/does-six-sigma-need-to-have-the-
support-of-upper-management/). 6sigma.us. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
14. Bertels, Thomas (2003) Rath & Strong's Six Sigma Leadership Handbook. John Wiley and Sons. pp 57–83 ISBN 0-471-
25124-0.
15. Harry, Mikel J.; Mann, Prem S.; De Hodgins, Ofelia C.; Hulbert, Richard L.; Lacke, Christopher J. (20 September 2011).
Practitioner's Guide to Statistics and Lean Six Sigma for Process Improvements (https://books.google.com/books?
id=wQsA2dKzvQkC&pg=PA30). John Wiley and Sons. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-1-118-21021-5. Retrieved 2011-11-15.
16. Keller, Paul A.; Keller, Paul (16 December 2010). Six Sigma Demystified (https://books.google.com/books?id=nhYCH-
69v7cC&pg=PA40). McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-07-174679-3. Retrieved 2011-09-20.
17. Webber, Larry; Wallace, Michael (15 December 2006). Quality Control for Dummies (https://books.google.com/books?
id=9BWkxto2fcEC&pg=PA292). For Dummies. pp. 292–. ISBN 978-0-470-06909-7. Retrieved 2011-09-20.
18. Coryea, R. Leroy; Cordy, Carl E.; Coryea, LeRoy R. (27 January 2006). Champion's Practical Six Sigma Summary
(https://books.google.com/books?id=MugP3-3U_F8C&pg=PA65). Xlibris Corporation. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-4134-9681-9.
Retrieved 2011-09-20.
19. "Certification – ASQ" (http://www.asq.org/certification/index.html). Milwaukee, Wisconsin: American Society for Quality.
Retrieved 2011-09-09.
20. Harry, Mikel J. (1988). The Nature of six sigma quality. Rolling Meadows, Illinois: Motorola University Press. p. 25.
ISBN 978-1-56946-009-2.
21. Gygi, Craig; DeCarlo, Neil; Williams, Bruce (2005). Six Sigma for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc. pp. Front
inside cover, 23. ISBN 0-7645-6798-5.
22. El-Haik, Basem; Suh, Nam P. Axiomatic Quality. John Wiley and Sons. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-471-68273-8.
23. Dusharme, Dirk. "Six Sigma Survey: Breaking Through the Six Sigma
Hype" (http://www.qualitydigest.com/nov01/html/sixsigmaarticle.html). Quality Digest.
24. Paton, Scott M. (August 2002). "Juran: A Lifetime of
Quality" (http://www.qualitydigest.com/aug02/articles/01_article.shtml). Quality Digest. 22 (8): 19–23. Retrieved
2009-04-01.
25. Crosby, Philip B. (1999). Quality and Me: Lessons from an Evolving Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. 159.
OCLC 40444566 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40444566). "Quality is measured by the price of nonconformance, not by
indexes."
26. Crosby, Philip B. (1996). Quality Is Still Free: Making Quality Certain in Uncertain Times. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. xiv.
OCLC 32820340 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/32820340). "The nonconformance situation semiconductor suppliers found
recently emerged from embracing the standard of "Six Sigma." This permits 3.4 defects per million components. Why anyone
would want to do that is beyond me. But they are now paying the price. When even ordinary chips contain a million or more
components, such a standard means that they are all defective."
27. Lean Six Sigma: Cost Reduction Strategies, Ade Asefeso MCIPS MBA (2012)
28. Morris, Betsy (11 July 2006). "Tearing up the Jack Welch
playbook" (http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/10/magazines/fortune/rule4.fortune/index.htm). Fortune. Retrieved 2006-11-26.
29. Richardson, Karen (7 January 2007). "The 'Six Sigma' Factor for Home
Depot" (https://online.wsj.com/article/SB116787666577566679.html). Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved 2007-10-15.
30. Ficalora, Joe; Costello, Joe. "Wall Street Journal SBTI
Rebuttal" (http://www.sbtionline.com/files/Wall_Street_Journal_SBTI_Rebuttal.pdf) (PDF). Sigma Breakthrough
Technologies, Inc. Retrieved 2007-10-15.
31. "Six Sigma Friend or Foe" (http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/dinamic-content/research/cbp/CBPupdate1-
SixSigmaFriendOrFoe.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 2012-02-10.
32. "Twelve P value
misconceptions" (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18751725/636586767/name/twelve+P+value+misconceptions.pdf) (PDF).
33. "important" (http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/important.htm).
34. "y-FX" (http://www.improvementandinnovation.com/features/article/y-fx-really-transfer-function/).
35. Harlow, Lisa Lavoie; Stanley A. Mulaik; James H. Steiger, eds. (1997). What If There Were No Significance Tests?.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-2634-0.
36. Morrison, Denton; Henkel, Ramon, eds. (2006) [1970]. The Significance Test Controversy. AldineTransaction. ISBN 0-202-
30879-0.

Page 11 of 13
 37. McCloskey, Deirdre N.; Ziliak, Stephen T. (2008). The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us
Jobs, Justice, and Lives. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-05007-9.
38. Chow, Siu L. (1997). Statistical Significance: Rationale, Validity and Utility. ISBN 0-7619-5205-5.
39. Paparone, Dr. Christopher R. "Army Logistician (A Values-Based Critique of Lean and Six Sigma as a Management
Ideology)" (http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JanFeb08/critique_6sig_ideology.html). Almc.army.mil. Retrieved
2012-02-10.
40. The fourth quadrant: a map of the limits of statistics [9.15.08] Nassim Nicholas Taleb, An Edge Original Essay
41. "Special Workshop on Risk Acceptance and Risk
Communication" (http://www.ripid.ethz.ch/Paper/DerKiureghian_paper.pdf) (PDF). Stanford University. 26–27 March 2007.
42. Dodge, John (10 December 2007). "3M Shelves Six Sigma in R&D" (http://www.designnews.com/article/12089-
3M_Shelves_Six_Sigma_in_R_D.php). Design News. Retrieved 2013-04-02.
43. Hindo, Brian (6 June 2007). "At 3M, a struggle between efficiency and
creativity" (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_24/b4038406.htm?
chan=top+news_top+news+index_best+of+bw). Business Week. Retrieved 2007-06-06.
44. Ruffa, Stephen A. (2008). Going Lean: How the Best Companies Apply Lean Manufacturing Principles to Shatter
Uncertainty, Drive Innovation, and Maximize Profits (https://books.google.com/books?id=_Q7OGDd61hkC). AMACOM (a
division of American Management Association). ISBN 0-8144-1057-X.
45. Wheeler, Donald J. (2004). The Six Sigma Practitioner's Guide to Data Analysis. SPC Press. p. 307. ISBN 978-0-945320-
62-3.
46. *Pande, Peter S.; Neuman, Robert P.; Cavanagh, Roland R. (2001). The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top
Companies are Honing Their Performance (https://books.google.com/books?
id=ybOuvzvcqTAC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=%
22key+bones+of+contention+amongst+the+statistical+experts+about+how+Six+Sigma+measures+are+defined%22). New
York: McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 229. ISBN 0-07-135806-4.

Further reading
◾ Adams, Cary W.; Gupta, Praveen; Wilson, Charles E. (2003). Six Sigma
Deployment (https://books.google.com/books? Wikimedia Commons has
id=0lY_bhMBzLwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Adams+Gupta). Burlington, MA: media related to Six Sigma.
Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 0-7506-7523-3. OCLC 50693105
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50693105). Wikiquote has quotations
◾ Breyfogle, Forrest W. III (1999). Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions related to: Six Sigma
Using Statistical Methods (https://books.google.com/books?
id=leQvoUXM9L0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Breyfogle+Implementing). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-26572-1. OCLC 50606471
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50606471).
◾ De Feo, Joseph A.; Barnard, William (2005). JURAN Institute's Six Sigma
Breakthrough and Beyond – Quality Performance Breakthrough Methods
(https://books.google.com/books?
id=0VHaTb6LJ4QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22six+sigma%22). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0-07-142227-7. OCLC 52937531
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52937531).
◾ Hahn, G. J., Hill, W. J., Hoerl, R. W. and Zinkgraf, S. A. (1999) The Impact of Six
Sigma Improvement-A Glimpse into the Future of Statistics, The American
Statistician, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 208–215.
◾ Keller, Paul A. (2001). Six Sigma Deployment: A Guide for Implementing Six
Sigma in Your Organization (https://books.google.com/books?
id=izjUAAAACAAJ&dq=Keller+Six+Sigma). Tucson, AZ: Quality Publishing.
ISBN 0-930011-84-8. OCLC 47942384
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47942384).
◾ Pande, Peter S.; Neuman, Robert P.; Cavanagh, Roland R. (2001). The Six Sigma
Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies are Honing Their
Performance (https://books.google.com/books?
id=ybOuvzvcqTAC&pg=PP1&dq=Pande+Six+Sigma+Way). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0-07-135806-4. OCLC 647006794
(https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/647006794).

Page 12 of 13
In the early 2000's Six Sigma principles expanded into other sectors of the economy, such as Healthcare, Finance,
Supply Chain, etc.

Description
Lean Six Sigma is a synergized managerial concept of Lean and Six Sigma. Lean traditionally focuses on the
elimination of the seven kinds of wastes/muda classified as defects, overproduction, transportation, waiting, inventory,
motion and over processing. Six Sigma seeks to improve the quality of process outputs by identifying and removing the
causes of defects (errors) and minimizing variability in (manufacturing and business) processes. Synergistically, Lean
aims to achieve continuous flow by tightening the linkages between process steps while Six Sigma focuses on reducing
process variation (in all its forms) for the process steps thereby enabling a tightening of those linkages. In short, Lean
exposes sources of process variation and Six Sigma aims to reduce that variation enabling a virtuous cycle of iterative
improvements towards the goal of continuous flow.

Lean Six Sigma uses the DMAIC phases similar to that of Six Sigma. Lean Six Sigma projects comprise aspects of
Lean's waste elimination and the Six Sigma focus on reducing defects, based on critical to quality characteristics. The
DMAIC toolkit of Lean Six Sigma comprises all the Lean and Six Sigma tools. The training for Lean Six Sigma is
provided through the belt based training system similar to that of Six Sigma. The belt personnel are designated as white
belts, yellow belts, green belts, black belts and master black belts, similar to judo.

For each of these belt levels skill sets are available that describe which of the
overall Lean Six Sigma tools are expected to be part at a certain Belt level.
These skill sets provide a detailed description of the learning elements that a
participant will have acquired after completing a training program. The level
upon which these learning elements may be applied is also described. The skill
sets reflect elements from Six Sigma, Lean and other process improvement
methods like the theory of constraints (TOC) total productive maintenance
(TPM).

5S Lean Six Sigma organization

structure
5S is a lean practice used to keep production workspace orderly and keep the
workforce committed to maintaining order.

Japanese Terms

1. Seiri - Put things in order

2. Seiton - The proper arrangement
3. Seiso - Clean (keep polished)
4. Seiketsu - Purity (maintain clean)
5. Shitsuke - Commitment instilling attitude/atmosphere to maintain 5S

English Terms

1. Sort - Get rid of what is not necessary

2. Straighten - Everything has a place and is in it
3. Shine - Keep clean machine/workplace
4. Standardize - Systems and procedures to maintain 1-3
5. Sustain - Maintain systems/procedures (1-4)

Page 2 of 4
See also
◾ Industrial Engineering
◾ Business process
◾ Design for Six Sigma
◾ DMAIC
◾ Lean manufacturing
◾ Six Sigma
◾ Total productive maintenance
◾ Total quality management
◾ Lean IT

References
1. " "Xerox cuts popular lean six sigma
program" " (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/10/13/xerox-cuts-popular-lean-six-sigma-
program-jobs/17203841/). democratandchronicle. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
2. Leaning into Six Sigma: The path to integration of Lean Enterprise and Six Sigma. Boulder City, Colorado. 2001. ISBN 978-
0971249103.

◾ George, Michael L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with Lean Production Speed (1st ed.).
McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-0071385213.
◾ George, Michael L.; Rowlands, David; Kastle, Bill (2003). What is Lean Six Sigma?. McGraw-Hill Education.
ISBN 978-0071426688.
◾ George, Michael L. (2004). The Lean Six Sigma Pocket Toolbook: A Quick Reference Guide to 100 Tools for
Improving Quality and Speed (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-0071441193.
◾ Kowansky, Elaine; Friberg, Norm (2006). How NOT To Implement Six Sigma: A manager's guide to ensuring the
failure of the world's greatest Quality Improvement and Waste Reducing Machine. Xilbris. ISBN 978-
1425712266.
◾ Bass, Issa; Lawton, Barbara (2009). Lean Six Sigma Using SigmaXL and Minitab. McGraw-Hill Education.
ISBN 978-0071621304.
◾ Pyzdek, Thomas; Keller, Paul (2014). The Six Sigma Handbook, Fourth Edition (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill
Education (published May 13, 2014). ISBN 978-0071840538.
◾ Morgan, John; Brenig-Jones, Martin (2015). Lean Six Sigma for Dummies, Third Revised Edition (3rd ed.). John
Wiley & Sons (published Nov 6, 2015). ISBN 978-1119067351.

External links
◾ Lean Six Sigma for Real Business Results
(http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/Redbooks.nsf/RedbookAbstracts/redp4447.html?OpenDocument), IBM
Redguide

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lean_Six_Sigma&oldid=790300008"

Categories: Lean manufacturing Six Sigma

◾ This page was last edited on 12 July 2017, at 20:55.

◾ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Page 3 of 4
DMAIC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DMAIC (an acronym for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) (pronounced də-MAY-ick) refers to a data-
driven improvement cycle used for improving, optimizing and stabilizing business processes and designs. The DMAIC
improvement cycle is the core tool used to drive Six Sigma projects. However, DMAIC is not exclusive to Six Sigma
and can be used as the framework for other improvement applications.

Contents
◾ 1 Steps
◾ 1.1 Define
◾ 1.2 Measure
◾ 1.3 Analyze
◾ 1.4 Improve
◾ 1.5 Control
◾ 1.6 Replicate and thank the teams
◾ 1.7 Additional Steps
◾ 2 See also
◾ 3 References

Steps
DMAIC is an abbreviation of the five improvement steps it comprises: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and
Control. All of the DMAIC process steps are required and always proceed in the given order.

Define

The purpose of this step is to clearly articulate the

business problem, goal, potential resources, project
scope and high-level project timeline. This
information is typically captured within project
charter document. Write down what you currently The five steps of DMAIC
know. Seek to clarify facts, set objectives and form
the project team. Define the following:

◾ A problem
◾ The customer(s)
◾ Voice of the customer (VOC) and Critical to Quality (CTQs) — what are the critical process outputs?

Measure

The purpose of this step is to objectively establish current baselines as the basis for improvement. This is a data
collection step, the purpose of which is to establish process performance baselines. The performance metric baseline(s)
from the Measure phase will be compared to the performance metric at the conclusion of the project to determine

Page 1 of 3
objectively whether significant improvement has been made. The team decides on what should be measured and how to
measure it. It is usual for teams to invest a lot of effort into assessing the suitability of the proposed measurement
systems. Good data is at the heart of the DMAIC process:

Analyze

The purpose of this step is to identify, validate and select root cause for elimination. A large number of potential root
causes (process inputs, X) of the project problem are identified via root cause analysis (for example a fishbone
diagram). The top 3-4 potential root causes are selected using multi-voting or other consensus tool for further
validation. A data collection plan is created and data are collected to establish the relative contribution of each root
causes to the project metric, Y. This process is repeated until "valid" root causes can be identified. Within Six Sigma,
often complex analysis tools are used. However, it is acceptable to use basic tools if these are appropriate. Of the
"validated" root causes, all or some can be

◾ List and prioritize potential causes of the problem

◾ Prioritize the root causes (key process inputs) to pursue in the Improve step
◾ Identify how the process inputs (Xs) affect the process outputs (Ys). Data are analyzed to understand the
magnitude of contribution of each root cause, X, to the project metric, Y. Statistical tests using p-values
accompanied by Histograms, Pareto charts, and line plots are often used to do this.
◾ Detailed process maps can be created to help pin-point where in the process the root causes reside, and what
might be contributing to the occurrence.

Improve

The purpose of this step is to identify, test and implement a solution to the problem; in part or in whole. This depends
on the situation. Identify creative solutions to eliminate the key root causes in order to fix and prevent process
problems. Use brainstorming or techniques like Six Thinking Hats and Random Word. Some projects can utilize
complex analysis tools like DOE (Design of Experiments), but try to focus on obvious solutions if these are apparent.
However, the purpose of this step can also be to find solutions without implementing them.

◾ Create
◾ Focus on the simplest and easiest solutions
◾ Test solutions using Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle
◾ Based on PDCA results, attempt to anticipate any avoidable risks associated with the "improvement" using the
Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)
◾ Create a detailed implementation plan
◾ Deploy improvements

Control

The purpose of this step is to sustain the gains. Monitor the improvements to ensure continued and sustainable success.
Create a control plan. Update records as required.

A Control chart can be useful during the Control stage to assess the stability of the improvements over time by serving
as 1. a guide to continue monitoring the process and 2. provide a response plan for each of the measures being
monitored in case the process becomes unstable.

Replicate and thank the teams

This is additional to the standard DMAIC steps but it should be considered. Think about replicating the changes in
other processes. Share your new knowledge within and outside of your organization. It is very important to always
provide positive morale support to team members in an effort to maximize the effectiveness of DMAIC.

Page 2 of 3
Replicating the improvements, sharing your success and thanking your team members helps build buy-in for future
DMAIC or improvement initiatives.

Additional Steps

Some organizations add a Recognize step at the beginning, which is to recognize the right problem to work on, thus
yielding an RDMAIC methodology.[1]

See also
◾ DFSS
◾ Industrial engineering
◾ Kaizen
◾ PDCA
◾ Six Sigma

References
1. Webber, Larry; Wallace, Michael (15 December 2006). Quality Control for Dummies (https://books.google.com/books?
id=9BWkxto2fcEC&pg=PA43). For Dummies. pp. 42–43. ISBN 978-0-470-06909-7. Retrieved 2012-05-16.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DMAIC&oldid=780531930"

Categories: Six Sigma Business terms Process management Production and manufacturing
Quality management Data management

◾ This page was last edited on 15 May 2017, at 18:16.

◾ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Page 3 of 3