<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Six Sigma and the Perils of Process</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/</link>
	<description>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:24:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Playing the infinite game &#124;&#124; March &#124;&#124; 2008</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/comment-page-1/#comment-140104</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Nehrlich, Unrepentant Generalist &#124;&#124; Playing the infinite game &#124;&#124; March &#124;&#124; 2008</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/#comment-140104</guid>
		<description>[...] My review of a Six Sigma book gives a hint: &#8220;when process is an end in itself, &#8230; it can choke an organization and prevent people from achieving what needs to get done.&#8221; In other words, when the process is viewed as a finite game that takes precedence, it is a bad thing. However, if process is viewed as part of an infinite game, where it is being used to promote core values and where the process can modify itself to improve its ability to achieve those core values, then I think process can be valuable. Science is a great example - it continues to evolve in its search for answers, answers which then provoke more questions. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] My review of a Six Sigma book gives a hint: &#8220;when process is an end in itself, &#8230; it can choke an organization and prevent people from achieving what needs to get done.&#8221; In other words, when the process is viewed as a finite game that takes precedence, it is a bad thing. However, if process is viewed as part of an infinite game, where it is being used to promote core values and where the process can modify itself to improve its ability to achieve those core values, then I think process can be valuable. Science is a great example &#8211; it continues to evolve in its search for answers, answers which then provoke more questions. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: auntiegrav</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/comment-page-1/#comment-91110</link>
		<dc:creator>auntiegrav</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/#comment-91110</guid>
		<description>I wrote an essay many years ago about this type of thinking.
http://www.equipment-reliability.com/articles/art1.htm

Recently, I thought of the real reason why it doesn&#039;t work as well as it should: it fails to accomodate the lunatic fringe trend of the bell curve. Six Sigma is all about FORCING processes to conform to the peak of the bell curve, which is centered around an idea or process which has already been established. Life doesn&#039;t work that way. In Nature, the lunatic fringe, the deformity, the offshoots are what make change (whether for good or bad), usually a little bit at a time. The result is that, over time, the bell curve of a species or behavior shifts to become centered over that &#039;different&#039; focal point. Six Sigma leaves no place for the freak, the random event, or diversity to spread the events of daily life, and thus, new ideas which would possibly improve  the future customer base (black swans). It is designed to avoid changes which aren&#039;t already designed into the system. In political and philosophical decision making, this is the equivalent of making all decisions based upon urban living, with no consideration for where the resources come from that make the city possible in the first place, and thus, being completely surprised whenever something surprising happens outside of the structured environment.
Sensitive dependence on dependency conditions.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wrote an essay many years ago about this type of thinking.<br />
<a href="http://www.equipment-reliability.com/articles/art1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.equipment-reliability.com/articles/art1.htm</a></p>
<p>Recently, I thought of the real reason why it doesn&#8217;t work as well as it should: it fails to accomodate the lunatic fringe trend of the bell curve. Six Sigma is all about FORCING processes to conform to the peak of the bell curve, which is centered around an idea or process which has already been established. Life doesn&#8217;t work that way. In Nature, the lunatic fringe, the deformity, the offshoots are what make change (whether for good or bad), usually a little bit at a time. The result is that, over time, the bell curve of a species or behavior shifts to become centered over that &#8216;different&#8217; focal point. Six Sigma leaves no place for the freak, the random event, or diversity to spread the events of daily life, and thus, new ideas which would possibly improve  the future customer base (black swans). It is designed to avoid changes which aren&#8217;t already designed into the system. In political and philosophical decision making, this is the equivalent of making all decisions based upon urban living, with no consideration for where the resources come from that make the city possible in the first place, and thus, being completely surprised whenever something surprising happens outside of the structured environment.<br />
Sensitive dependence on dependency conditions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bats</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/comment-page-1/#comment-83568</link>
		<dc:creator>Bats</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/#comment-83568</guid>
		<description>Funny... Six Sigma came up during my dinner with Raj on Friday.  He told me that they were implementing Six Sigma in his research group, which is a horrible misapplication of the process--he agrees that it should largely be applied to manufacturing.

However, he did note that some of his PhD research was bastardized and incorporated into Six Sigma--for instance, see &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&amp;id=JMDEDB000123000004000630000001&amp;idtype=cvips&amp;gifs=yes&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this paper&lt;/a&gt;.

His specific argument for implementing this process isn&#039;t that it is really revolutionary: all of these steps, taken individually or in aggregate, are &quot;duh&quot; levels of obviousness: measure what the quality of your output is, and figure out sensitivies of various inputs to optimize where you want to concentrate your improvements.  

However, although the steps are obvious, they don&#039;t necessarily get implemented.  The reason is, at least in part, that large organizations fragment responsibility among teams, so &quot;common sense&quot; steps like these can fall through the cracks, or be shuffled off as &quot;somebody else&#039;s problem.&quot;  Therefore, by creating a process that Management buys into and supports (which is unfortunately filled with jargon), it actually happens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny&#8230; Six Sigma came up during my dinner with Raj on Friday.  He told me that they were implementing Six Sigma in his research group, which is a horrible misapplication of the process&#8211;he agrees that it should largely be applied to manufacturing.</p>
<p>However, he did note that some of his PhD research was bastardized and incorporated into Six Sigma&#8211;for instance, see <a HREF="http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&amp;id=JMDEDB000123000004000630000001&amp;idtype=cvips&amp;gifs=yes" rel="nofollow">this paper</a>.</p>
<p>His specific argument for implementing this process isn&#8217;t that it is really revolutionary: all of these steps, taken individually or in aggregate, are &#8220;duh&#8221; levels of obviousness: measure what the quality of your output is, and figure out sensitivies of various inputs to optimize where you want to concentrate your improvements.  </p>
<p>However, although the steps are obvious, they don&#8217;t necessarily get implemented.  The reason is, at least in part, that large organizations fragment responsibility among teams, so &#8220;common sense&#8221; steps like these can fall through the cracks, or be shuffled off as &#8220;somebody else&#8217;s problem.&#8221;  Therefore, by creating a process that Management buys into and supports (which is unfortunately filled with jargon), it actually happens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/comment-page-1/#comment-83558</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/#comment-83558</guid>
		<description>I think Six Sigma was originally developed for manufacturing, but it&#039;s surprisingly being used in services these days as well.  Many of the people in my class who work in finance have to use it, as it&#039;s used to optimize customer transactions and things like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Six Sigma was originally developed for manufacturing, but it&#8217;s surprisingly being used in services these days as well.  Many of the people in my class who work in finance have to use it, as it&#8217;s used to optimize customer transactions and things like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Beemer</title>
		<link>http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/comment-page-1/#comment-83533</link>
		<dc:creator>Beemer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:14:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nehrlich.com/blog/2007/10/07/six-sigma-and-the-perils-of-process/#comment-83533</guid>
		<description>From what I&#039;ve heard about Six Sigma (admittedly, not a lot) it also sounds like it&#039;s really designed for manufacturers.  There seem to be a lot of deep assumptions built into it that will help you create more or better widgets, but that don&#039;t necessarily help if your organization is doing something other than making &lt;i&gt;things&lt;/i&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I&#8217;ve heard about Six Sigma (admittedly, not a lot) it also sounds like it&#8217;s really designed for manufacturers.  There seem to be a lot of deep assumptions built into it that will help you create more or better widgets, but that don&#8217;t necessarily help if your organization is doing something other than making <i>things</i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

