Point of View
Six Sigma: Not a Panacea for Design
According to the Six Sigma
Academy, a company can
count on someone certified
as a Six Sigma "Black Belt" to
save about $230,000 per
project, and many Black Belts
complete as many as six
projects per year.
Flaws
By Karthikeyan Natarajan
Head, Mahindra Satyam Integrated Engineering Solutions
The quantifiable results derived from Six Sigma programs are impressive;
it has proven to be comprehensive, effective quality tool.
For more than a decade, companies throughout the world have applied Six Sigma
techniques to improve process performance, decrease variation, and maintain
consistent quality of process output. It provides the techniques and tools to
streamline any process, reduce whatever defects it may include, and measure process
capability.
Originally used in 1995 in Motorola’s manufacturing division, where millions of
parts are made via the same, repeated process, Six Sigma is now applied in numerous
industries. By implementing the structured, disciplined, and data-driven approach,
thousands of organizations have seen dramatic reductions, if not elimination, of
defects. As such, they have enjoyed enhanced profits, superior product quality,
and new levels of customer satisfaction.
The quantifiable results derived from Six Sigma programs are impressive; it has
proven to be comprehensive, effective quality tool. Creating fewer than 3.4 defects
per one million opportunities—the standard for Six Sigma—is indeed remarkable,
and the results of such efficiency can be staggering. According to the Six Sigma
Academy, a company can count on someone certified as a Six Sigma "Black Belt" to
save about $230,000 per project, and many Black Belts complete as many as six
projects per year.
General Electric has embraced Six Sigma wholeheartedly, and benefited a great
deal from its commitment. By blending proven engineering philosophies, Six Sigma
techniques, and significant common sense, GE has improved its market share,
Consumer Union Rankings, and profitability—huge gains for relatively low cost.
Another company applied Six Sigma and reduced the time required to complete a
service from 70 days to just 10 in only 18 months. As a result of this increased
operational vigor, parts back orders also dropped dramatically.
Moreover, GE implemented the Design For Six Sigma Methodology (DFSS) for new
product development and for value engineering techniques, improving its bottom
line 4 percent in the process. Key program elements are listed below:
• It converted the margin in design to value engineering opportunities
• Customers reported significantly fewer quality issues. (Service call rates dropped
from 7 percent to 4 percent in five years.)
• Customer satisfaction improved, along with the quality and reliability of its
products
• The program enabled system engineering practices, which, in turn, enabled
next-generation product and technology development
Design still matters
While Six Sigma can enhance the quality of design by forcing users to understand
its failure probabilities from the outset, it cannot architect a design itself. That
Point of View
In addition, Six Sigma
provides a set of tools and a
framework to capture the
voice of the customer. It
improves process capabilities
by minimizing defects, which
leads to higher customer
satisfaction. However, Six
Sigma does not replace good
design practices.
critical task remains in the purview of the design team. Only when a design is
architected, and meets the functional requirements, can DFSS improve process
capabilities. If a design meets its functional requirements, DFSS can ensure its
consistency throughout its life.
In addition, Six Sigma provides a set of tools and a framework to capture the voice
of the customer. It improves process capabilities by minimizing defects, which leads
to higher customer satisfaction. However, Six Sigma does not replace good design
practices.
Instead, companies must employ predictive engineering, analytical engineering,
fundamentals of design, engineering drawing standards, and process technologies,
among other disciplines. To achieve transformational results, true collaboration is
required. At the same time, Six Sigma is not a substitute for robust design techniques,
frequent "toll-gating" (comprehensive checks during product development), and
implementation of environmental, health, and safety processes. Nor can it modify
design principles.
Similarly, DFSS methods can only address processes that can ensure minimal
variations and bring about expected performance. They cannot produce better
designs to meet functional requirements, or address design flaws.
Consider the story of a man who visits an eye doctor for a checkup:
The doctor asks the man to read a chart from a distance, but the patient says he is
unable to do so. The doctor examines the patient’s eyes closely, produces several
pairs of glasses, and then asks him to try each one. Even after sampling several
pairs of spectacles, the man still cannot read the chart. The perplexed doctor begins
to ask the patient some questions, and soon enough, discovers the patient cannot
read or write.
This example illustrates the fact that basic functionality requirements must be met
before fine-tuning can be effective. Attempting to tune a process without ensuring
that it is designed properly may work, once in a while. However, it is more likely to
be futile—a solution in search of a problem—akin to giving an illiterate man glasses
to help him read.
Similarly, a company recently produced refrigerator liners via thermo-forming with
a new plastic material. However, it did so without a proper process to establish
important dimensions, such as liner width. Precise liner widths are critical because
they help a refrigerator hold trays, shelves, and other parts securely. To solve this
problem, the company was prepared to spend a considerable sum to modify its
machine process parameters. Instead, it embarked on three months of design
experiments—a far less expensive option. These resulted in creation of a post-
formation cooling fixture, which ensured the process capability for the critical
dimensions.
In addition, like most large-scale initiatives, a Six Sigma program requires support
throughout the organization—a holistic approach. Members of the design team, for
instance, must keep their marketing, sourcing, purchasing, and manufacturing
colleagues apprised of changes in process. Furthermore, the entire organization
must embrace the shift in mindset and culture required for Six Sigma programs to
work optimally. Without commitment and support at every level of the organization,
complemented by robust change management initiatives, Six Sigma programs are
likely to fall short of expectations, or fail outright.
Point of View

Six Points about Six Sigma

• Six Sigma is a mindset, more than a tool. It is a comprehensive shift in how
operations are performed. To ensure success, the entire ecosystem—suppliers,
customers, and implementers, among others—must commit to the Six Sigma
philosophy.
• Using numerous Six Sigma techniques does not guarantee a superior product.
Using numerous Six Sigma However, applying exceptional tools can guarantee success.
techniques does not • Control plans tend to fall apart if they are not linked to business imperatives or
guarantee a superior metrics. Track projects and initiatives, and ensure accountability.
product. However, applying • Six Sigma techniques can be applied in most industries—for quality and
exceptional tools can mainstream processes
guarantee success • Six Sigma is not a substitute for common sense. Hard work and applied expertise
can solve many problems; applying Six Sigma to all problems is ineffective.
• Senior management commitment is imperative to Six Sigma success.
Organizations should work hard to generate enthusiasm. Pointing to some of its
abundant success stories is an effective way to create excitement.

For further information please write to rfi@mahindrasatyam.com

www.mahindrasatyam.com