8/9/2019 Why Six Sigma is Not TQM

1/1

Iam often told by my colleagues that

t h e re s no real diffe rence between Six

Sigma and total quality manage m e n t

(TQM). Indeed, Six Sigma does employ

some of the same tried-and-true tools and

techniques of TQM. Both Six Sigma and

TQM emphasize the importance of top-

d own supp ort and leadership. Both

app ro a ches make it clear that continuo us

quality improvement is critical to long-term

business success. And the plan-do-study-act

cycle used in TQM is not fundamentally dif-

ferent than the Six Sigma define-measure-analyze-improve-control cy cl e.

But there are differencesc ritical dif-

fe rences. And these diffe rences explain

why the populari ty

of TQM has waned,

while Six Sigmas

p o p u l a rity contin-

ues to grow.

The pri m a ry dif-

fe re n c e, in a wo rd,

is m a n age m e n t.

U n l i ke T Q M , S i x

Sigma was not developed by techies wh o

o n ly dabbled in management and there-

fo re produced only broad guidelines fo r

management to follow. Six Sigma was cre-

ated by some of A m e ri c a s most gi f t e d

CEOs, people like Motorolas Bob Galvin,

A l l i e d S i g n a l s Larry Bossidy and GEs

Jack Welch. These people had a single goal

in mind: making their businesses as suc-

cessful as possibl e. Once they we re con-

vinced that the tools and techniques of the

quality profession could help them do this,

t h ey developed a fra m ewo rk to make ith ap p e n : Six Sigma.

We quality pro fessionals knew we had

a winning set of tools that could solve qual-

ity problems in manufa cturin g. Total qual-

ity control , i nvented in 1950, showed that

p roduct quality could be improved by

expanding quality effo rts into upstre a m

areas such as engi ne ering and purch as i ng.

We even had limited success using our

tools to improve quality in administrative

areas by reducing erro rs in service tran s-

actions. But, despite these successes, we

suffered from a number of shortc om in gs ,

for example :

n We focused on quality and ignored other

c ritical business issues. Quality trum p e d

eve rything else. Of cours e, this made no

business sense and often led to organ iza-

tions that failed despite improved quality.

n We created a quality specialty that suf-

fe red from all of the same suboptimiza-

tion pro blems as other functions within

the orga n i z ation. Despite all of our talk

about a systems pers p e c t ive, when push

came to shove, we fought for our point ofview (and bud get) just like everyone else.

In the typical organ i zatio n, this resulted in

other dep a rtments considering q u a l i t y

the quali ty dep a rt m e n t s terri t o ry. Th u s ,

t hey backed off fromor never starte d

effo rts of their own .

n We emphasized minimum accep t an ce

re q u i rements and standards rather than

striving for ever-increasing levels of per-

formance.

n We never developed an infrastruc tu re

for freeing up res ources to improve busi-

ness processes.

n We developed a quality career pat h .

Quality professionals tended to lack expert-

ise in other areas of the company. This divi-

sion of labor, combined with functionally

spec ialized organizations, made it difficul t

to improve quality beyond a certain level.

(I estimate that this type of orga n i z at i o n

tops out at about 3.5 sigma.)

The CEOs we re able to see wh at the

problems were and create an approach that

fixed them. Six Sigma addresses them all.n Six Sigma extends the use of the

im provement tools to cost, cycle time and

other business issues.

n Six Sigma discards the majority of the

quality toolkit. It keeps a subset of tools

t hat ra nge from the basic to the advanc ed.

Six Sigma discards esoteric statistical tools

and completely ignores such quality sta-

p l e s as ISO 9000 and the Malcolm

Bald ri ge National Quality Awa rd cri te ri a.

Training focuses on using the tools, n o t

th eory, to achieve tangible resu l ts.

n Six Sigma integrates the goals of the

organization as a whole into the improve-

ment effort. Sure, quality is good, but not

i n d ependent of other business goals. Six

Sigma creates top-level oversight to assure

that the interests of the entire organization

are considered.

n Six Sigma strives for world-class per-

formance. The Six Sigma standard is 3.4

failures per million opportunities, but it goes

beyond errors. The best of the Six Sigma

o rga ni zations try to meet or exceed their

c u s to m e r s ex p ect ations 999,996.4 timesout of every million encounters.

n Six Sigma creates an infrastructure of

change agents who are not employed in the

quality department. These people work full-

and part-time on projects in their areas or in

other areas. Six Sigma Black Belts dont

ma ke care ers in Six Sigma. Instead, t hey

focus on Six Sigma for two years and then

c o n t i nue their care e rs elsewh e re. Gre e n

Belts wo rk on Six Sigma projects wh i l e

holding down other jobs. These subject mat-

ter experts are provided with training to give

the skills they need to improve processes.

Six Sigma belts are not certified unless

they can demonstrate that they have effec-

t ive ly used the ap p ro a ch to benefit cus-

tomers, shareholders and employees.

Th e re are many other diffe rences as

well. Having wo rked with orga n i z at i o n s

that have done TQM and Six Sigma well, I

can tell you that successful programs of

both types look very much alike. But Six

S i g m a , by cl e a rly defining this l o o k ,

makes it easier for organizations to succeedby providing a clear roa dmap to success.

Im not saying that succeeding at Six Sigma

is easy, but organizations are more willing

to invest the effort if they know that a pot

of gold awaits them at the end.

About the author

Thomas Pyzdek is a consultant in Six

Sigma. Learn more about Six Sigma at

w w w. py z d e k . c o m . E-mail Pyzdek at

tpyzdek@qualitydigest.com.

Six Sigma and Beyond Thomas Pyzdek

Why Six Sigma is not TQMTheres a reason TQMs popularity has cooled while Six Sigmas has flourished.

qd