六西格玛不是全面质量管理WhySixSigmaisnotTQM
第一篇：六西格玛不是全面质量管理Why Six Sigma is not TQM
Why Six Sigma is not TQM
By
Thomas Pyzdek*
February 2001
My colleagues often tell me that there is no real difference between Six Sigma and TQM. "Show me where Six Sigma involves anything new." Six Sigma employs some of the same
离退休干部
tried-and-true tools and techniques of TQM. Both Six Sigma and TQM emphasize the importance of top-down support and leadership. Both approaches make it clear that continuous improvement of quality is critical to long-term business success. The PDSA cycle ud in TQM is not fundamentally different than the Six Sigma DMAIC cycle.
性感诱惑图片But there are differences. Critical differences. And the differences explain why the popularity of TQM has waned, while Six Sigma's popularity continues to grow.
The difference, in a word, is management. TQM provided only very broad guidelines for management to follow. Guidelines so abstract and general that only the most gifted leaders were able to knit together a successful deployment strategy for TQM. Business magazines and newspapers reported widespread failure of TQM efforts. True, solid rearch showed that organizations which succeeded in successfully implementing TQM reaped substantial rewards. But the low probability of success deterred many organizations from trying TQM. Instead, many organizations opted for ISO 9000. ISO 9000 promis not world-class performance levels, but "standard" performance. But it provides clear criteria and a guarantee that meeting the criteria will result in recognition. In contrast, TQM offered a mushy t of philosophical guidelines and no way to prove that one had accomplished their quality goals.
Unlike TQM, Six Sigma was not developed by techies who only dabbled in management.
Six Sigma was created by some of America's most gifted CEOs. People like Motorola's Bob Galvin, AlliedSignal's Larry Bossidy, and GE's Jack Welch. The people had a single goal in mind: to make their business as successful as possible. Once they were convinced that the tools and techniques of the quality profession could help them do this, they developed a framework to make it happen. Six Sigma.
Speaking as a member of the quality profession, we knew that we had a winning t of tools that could solve quality problems in manufacturing. Total quality control, invented in 1950, showed that product quality could be improved by expanding quality efforts into upstream areas such as engineering and purchasing. We even had limited success in using our tools to improve quality in administrative areas by reducing errors in rvice transactions. But despite the success we suffered from a number of shortcomings. For example:
We focud on quality and ignored other critical business issues. Quality
trumped everything el. Of cour, this made no business n and often lead to
organizations that failed despite improved quality.
We created a quality specialty that suffered from all of the same suboptimization
problems as other functions within the organization. Despite all of our talk about a systems perspective, when push came to shove we fought for our point of view (and our budget) just like everyone el. In the typical organization this resulted in other departments considering "quality" to be the turf of the quality department. Thus, they backed off of梠r never started梕fforts of their own. We emphasized minimum acceptance requirements and standards, rather than不做旁观者
个人事迹标题索尼a7s2striving for ever increasing levels of performance.
We never developed an infrastructure for freeing up resources to improve
business process.
developed a career path in quality. Quality professionals tended to lack
subject matter experti in other areas of the company. This division of labor, combined with functionally specialized organization, made it difficult to improve quality beyond a certain level. (I estimate that this type of organization tops out at about 3.5 sigma.) We
The CEOs were able to e what the problems were, and to create an approach that fixed them. Six Sigma is address all of the issue.
远程培训
Six Sigma extends the u of the improvement tools to cost, cycle time, and
other business issues.空姐世界
Six Sigma discards the majority of the quality toolkit. It keeps a subt of tools
橡皮泥作品图片that range from the basic to the advanced. Six Sigma discards esoteric statistical tools and completely ignores such staples of the quality professional as ISO 9000 and the Malcolm Baldrige criteria. Training focus on using the tools to achieve tangible business results, not on theory.
