The concept of quality management has dominated management for decades as many organizations worldwide adopt quality management tools to improve their competitiveness and financial results.
Among the quality management tools which have been widely adopted by organizations include Six Sigma, ISO, TQM, as well as Dr. Deming’s Principles of Total Quality Management. It is therefore important to understand the similarities and differences that exist between these tools.
Six Sigma, TQM, ISO and Dr. Deming’s Principles of TQM use data-and-fact-driven management to measure the outcomes and outputs of performance in determining whether the organization is meeting its expectations (Burt, Petcavage & Pinkerton, 2010).
Dr. Deming’s Principles focus on quantitative analysis of organization processes outputs in every stage of the entire process. The aim of ISO is to ensure that organizations use data to monitor, measure and analyse quality control as well as improve quality provision. Similarly, TQM emphasise the use of data as well as statistics to monitor and appraise the production process in addition to quality.
TQM, ISO, Six Sigma and Dr, Deming’s Principles of TQM all focus on constant learning among employees although they consider learning in different perspectives.
Dr. Deming’s Principles stress on thorough pre-employment screening, rigorous pre-work training, retraining while on the job, as well as, learning from colleagues, clients and competitors (Burt, Petcavage & Pinkerton, 2010).
TQM also stresses on constant training of the workers while Six Sigma emphasizes the need to provide a working environment where workers can learn and innovate by making mistakes. Six Sigma focuses on developing organizational culture where workers can continually improve their abilities and production process by being open to let people take risks in trying new ideas.
TQM, ISO, Six Sigma and Dr, Deming’s Principles of TQM all recognize the importance of collaborating with the suppliers and customers in improving production and services. Dr. Deming’s Principles stress that it is important to understand inputs from suppliers in terms of quality and timelines while also learning from them (Burt, Petcavage & Pinkerton, 2010).
Six Sigma also recognizes that it is important to work together with the suppliers and vendors in ensuring that the organization achieves the most value for its customers. TQM also stresses on communication links between the management, workers, the organization and all elements of the supply chain (Burt, Petcavage & Pinkerton, 2010).
ISO on the other hand evaluates the sources of the resources used in the organization for meeting and maintaining standards. Again, all of them focus on satisfying their customers and therefore rely on the customers’ feedback through marketing research to change the direction of the production or processes.
In Six Sigma approach, it is the customers who determine changes made to processes as well as products. In both Dr. Deming’s Principles and TQM, customers have to be involved in change processes and are allowed to experience while ISO measures the level of customer satisfaction.
While TQM and Dr. Deming’s Principles emphasize adoption of a policy of zero defects by ensuring quality chains where every stage of production process is monitored and any problem realized is filtered at every stage of the production process, Six Sigma focuses on the process where improvements and better management can help perfect the organization (Burt, Petcavage & Pinkerton, 2010). Dr. Deming’s Principles stress on refining every process of production.
One major difference between Dr. Deming’s Principles and TQM, ISO and Six Sigma is that Dr. Deming’s Principles advocate for motivating workers by sharing profits with them as a team while eliminating merit rewards for short-term performance (Burt, Petcavage & Pinkerton, 2010).
It also emphasizes on eliminating practices which are seen as undermining workers’ motivation as well as self/mutual respect such as performance ratings and production quotas so as to foster their pride for workmanship.
TQM, ISO, Six Sigma and Dr. Deming’s Principles have several similarities and differences. However, their major common similarity is their focus on commitment of the management and teams in the organization to achieve the required standards and customer satisfaction.
Reference
Burt, D. N., Petcavage, S. D. & Pinkerton, R. L. (2010). Supply management, 8th ed. Boston: McGraw‐Hill.
The DMAIC process is Six Sigma methodology which is used to improve accessible or established process of the projects in any organization. It contains five stages and every stage can be applied in repeated or iterative manner. Every step in these processes is connected to each other.
The first step is the definition of the process and depends on both sketching and Failure Modes Analysis. The objective for this step is a defined procedural map with all activities, outputs and inputs along with Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) chart (Gygi, DeCarlo, & Williams, 2005, p. 41).
Measure
Provided there is a defined process, this stage is intended to take metrics on every stage to establish if the process is taking place as designed. It also establishes if the process is taking place within the chosen quality conditions.
A proper measurement plan should be defined to make sure that the measurements are not statistically tilted. The measurement step depends mostly on Statistical Process Control (SPC) methodologies for collecting information (Shanka, 2009, p. 11).
Analyze
After carrying out the process metrics, several analysis devices can be applied to determine the failures and barriers within the process to attain the performance conditions or where unpredicted action is taking place.
Improve
Once the process has passed through analysis stage, improvements of the process may be performed. These enhancements are derived from the data and analysis, and are intended to take the process to meet its declared goals.
Control
Once the process has been improved, the next step of the methodology concentrates on constant measurement to confirm that the process goes on to attain its final or production goals. The control step is intended to make sure that the process does not turn out as corrupted.
If environmental conditions change, the process is required to be restructured. The diagram below shows the processes of Six Sigama (Shanka, 2009, p. 95):
TRMC’s Six Sigma
Six Sigma has been used by Thibodaux Regional Medical Center (TRMC) since 2002 and they changed their management styles to cope with operational and medical matters (Palagyi & Hamelynch, 2003). An example of an activity which is aligned with the strategic plan of the business was a proposal to decrease pressure ulcer or nosocomial. This is an example of the major performance metrics showing quality of care.
Even though the rate of pressure ulcer at the health care facility was highly superior to the industry standards, the constant quality improvement data identified an increase between the 2004 and 2005 (Henderson, 2011, p. 6).
In September 2005, a Six Sigma project to tackle this problem was implemented by the hospital’s management and the team started to simplify the problem statement. Their target was to be effective and efficient by solving matters resulting to the growth of nosocomial pressure ulcers.
To ensure that their plans are generating an optimistic change on the patient care setting, the hospital constantly measures worker and patient satisfaction through Press Ganey.
Worker satisfaction is constantly graded in the 97th percentile and inpatient satisfaction is measured in the 99th percentile (Henderson, 2011, p. 6). TRMC also have been acknowledged for its success including awards such as Press Ganey Excellence Award and Louisiana Performance Excellence Award.
Black Belt and the head of pressure ulcer project, Sheri Eschete, claimed that the project is an excellent instance of the need to validate fundamental causes through application of valid data, instead of relying on first instinct only. Six Sigma has helped the hospital with several approaches to solve some real issues so that they can create appropriate improvements (Henderson, 2011, p. 6).
Application of Six Sigma mechanism has extended into several areas beyond manufacturing. Regardless of various criticisms of DMAIC strategy, it remains to produce great impact on the way industries or organizations meet and maintain excellence.
References
Gygi, C., DeCarlo, N., & Williams, B. (2005). Six Sigma For Dummies. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Henderson, R. (2011). Six Sigma Quality Improvement with Minitab. West Sussex: ohn Wiley & Sons.
Palagyi, S., & Hamelynch, A. (2003). Understanding the Value of Six Sigma. Supply Chain Forum , 4(1): 48-50.
Shanka, R. (2009). Process Improvement Using Six Sigma: A Dmaic Guide. New York: ASQ Quality Press.
Contemporary business environment is characterized by changes emanating from globalization of markets, technological changes, political realignments, changing consumer preferences, organizational restructuring, among other changes. Consequently, organizations have to monitor their external environment and constantly align themselves with these changes in order to survive in the highly dynamic and competitive economic environment.
The ability to anticipate, plan for, implement, and manage change is a key determinant of success in any business organization. Effective management of organizational change is a complex process that requires all the relevant stake holders within the organization to be change conscious. The organization’s response to internal and external demands and contingencies should be prompt and the activities and ideas across all the levels of the organization should be permeable in order to allow integration.
Technological revolution which has been fueled by information and communication technology advancement has increased the rate and scope of change making the process of change even more complex. Managing change therefore demands new and more evolved cross functional initiatives and change management techniques to direct change in organizations.
Lean Six Sigma combines lean methods with six sigma approaches to change management. It builds on extensive body of information, techniques, and tools drawn from previous operation development study and execution. While lean methods concentrate on reducing cost (through optimization) Six Sigma dwells on satisfying the client through quality production.
Lean-Six Sigma as a change management tool
Previously, Lean Six Sigma was used primarily for operational improvement within organizations. However, due to the dramatic changes taking place in the modern market, business organizations are constantly undergoing changes which demand restructuring, innovation, and adjustment.
Consequently, organizations have to focus on establishing appropriate responses to such changes in addition to continuously improving their operations. Organizations such as General Motors and Caterpillar have implemented the Lean Six Sigma in their organizations which has assisted in bridging the gap between the company’s operations and stake holder’s expectations.
The Six Sigma incorporates organization’s vision, development of a strategy through which the management seeks to achieve its objectives, and the strategy execution process (Hartung, 2010). It utilizes statistical tools to assess the quality of products and services of an organization which facilitates quality improvement.
The Six Sigma emphasizes on the need for continuous improvement of products and services in order to meet consumer specifications and requirements. Organizations have further introduced the concept of lean methodology which focuses on the internal need to maximize value through optimal production and reduction in overall operational costs (Aruleswaran, 2010).
Lean and six sigma work concurrently to integrate the needs of the customer and business needs. This enables the organization to provide quality products and enhance speed through lean processes and operations. Lean and Six Sigma have been successfully implemented both separately and together across a variety of manufacturing and non manufacturing industries in the economy (Hartung, 2010).
However, organizations that have instinctively combined both approaches have achieved exceptional performance relative to the others. Consequently, modern businesses prefer Lean Six Sigma approach which is driven by the need for the organization to change and continuously improve its operations. The LSS approach to change management has not only enabled companies to survive in the ever changing business environment, but has also helped them to reach higher levels of performance.
Implementing Lean-Six Sigma in an organization
The process of implementing Lean-Six Sigma within the organization closely follows the fundamentals of the twelve pillars of Six Sigma. It involves extensive Analysis of the market and consumer behavior which is essential in planning and managing change in organizations. Adequate knowledge regarding economic changes, consumer needs, and prevailing political climate which may directly or indirectly affect the activities of the organization is important in managing change within an organization (Hartung, 2010).
Consequently, such information should be extensively analyzed in order to enhance the company’s ability to deal with internal and external changes. The organization’s management should embrace change and commit towards driving change implementation. This is made possible by senior management acknowledgement of the need to improve the present conditions in the organization which enables him to mobilize fellow employees to work together towards achievement of organization’s long term goals.
Extensive management training is essential in enhancing the senior managers’ ability to deliver expected results (Blokdjik, 2008). The senior managers should be trained on lean six sigma techniques and support mechanisms necessary to deliver organizations expected results. Demand for Lean Six Sigma training has significantly increased over the past few years and its being offered in numerous modern institutions (Blokdjik, 2008).
In addition, an organization should set forth a mission and a vision which translates into the company’s objectives. In order to manage change effectively, the management should develop a strategic plan through which the company can achieve its objectives. The management should continuously monitor the process of implementation in order to assess the effectiveness.
Effective implementation of lean six sigma initiatives demands able leadership and competent management. Competent leaders have the ability to inspire fellow employees, guide them towards the strategic direction of change, develop operational excellence within the organization, and unleash the talent and potential of the workforce through provision of constant motivation to fellow employees (Aruleswaran, 2010).
Effective management on the other hand ensures that lean six sigma projects selection and execution follows the highest standards and that resources are being utilized optimally in order to achieve maximum returns.
Therefore, for a company to transform into a Lean Six Sigma organization, it has to establish the best practices to adopt in order to implement change, adapt these practices, and continually improve them in order to retain competitive advantage (Aruleswaran, 2010). This often leads to invention of new products, opportunities, and avenues of growth within the organization.
Conclusion
Due to the dynamic nature of modern business, organizations have adopted various mechanisms through which they adapt to changes in the internal and external environment. Lean and Six Sigma are two quality initiatives that have received a lot of attention in the modern business environment.
Each of these approaches provides an organization with a methodology through which it can continuously improve its performance. Lean and Six Sigma methodologies enhance production efficiency and consumer satisfaction through provision of quality products and services. In addition, these approaches focus on improving organization’s operational processes such as product development, administration, customer service, manufacturing, and supply chain management among others.
Combining tools and methodologies of these two approaches significantly accelerate the rate of performance within organizations. Consequently, business organizations seek to implement the Lean Six Sigma as a tool of change management within their organizations. This is a methodology that promotes business improvement through maximization of value to shareholders, efficient production, and customer satisfaction.
Reference List
Aruleswaran, A. (2010). Changing with Lean Six Sigma. Malaysia: LSS Academy.
Blokdjik, G. (2008). Six SIGMA 100 Success Secrets – The Missing Six SIGMA Green Belt, Black Belt Training, Certification, Design and Implementation Guide, Lulu.com.
Hartung, M. (2010). Lean-Six Sigma, Quality & Process Management for Managers and Professionals. New York: Books on Demand.
Total quality management (TQM) is a business strategy employed by companies or profit making originations to increase customer satisfaction as well as improve their internal processes (McNamara, 2011).
Six sigma on the other hand is a methodology applied by companies and organisations in defining, measuring, improving, analysing and controlling the quality of all companies’ processes, products and transactions with an objective of minimizing or eliminating defects (Seattle, 2003).
TQM and six sigma therefore focus on overall improvement of companies’ production through establishment of short term and long term strategies and processes.
Different companies use either TQM or six sigma as a strategy to improve their business quality. In the implementation of both, there are some factors which must be considered. This assignment will identify them and discuss examples of companies which have applied TQM and six sigma strategies
Discussion
The main implementation issues associated with TQM include understanding of TQM and what it entails, establishing an organisational culture which can support the implementation of TQM, aligning TQM implementation with the priorities of the organisation and understanding of the time frames necessary for the implementation of the TQM.
All these are very important especially to the top management of the organization or company (Seattle, 2003).
The main implementation issues associated with six sigma include data collection on customer satisfaction, minimization of defects in process of product production, training of both the top management and the workforce on six sigma process, and a shift in thinking by managers from thinking in terms of events to thinking in terms of processes.
This is an orientation strategy which encourages the management and the employees to commit themselves in the improvement of quality of processes and products for the company (Slide Share, 2011). Many companies have implemented TQM.
An ex ample of a company which has implemented TQM is the Xerox Corporation which deals with photocopying machines and other information technology accessories. One company which has implemented the six sigma approach is the Motorola Company, which deals with mobile phones.
THE Xerox Corporation used the TQM to increase its competitiveness among other companies which deal with similar products and goods at the international level. The implementation of TQM by the organization included the implementation of programs like reducing the supply base, benchmarking and the formation of leadership teams. This made the corporation win the quality prize in the year 1980 (Brownie Freelance Limited, 2010).
Motorola Company is an organization which has implemented the six sigma successfully for over 25 years. The use of six sigma has helped the company improve on the quality of its products and services, making it very famous among its competitors.
Even though the company has successfully implemented the six sigma, the technology manager Karen Ridges acknowledged that they were faced with the challenge of sustaining the knowledge gained through six sigma in the future activities of the company (Slide Share, 2011).
Conclusion
Both TQM and six sigma are very important strategies for the improvement of the quality of companies’ products and services. Different companies use either TQM or six sigma to improve the quality of their products and services and increase their competitiveness among the other companies engaged in similar businesses as well as increase customer satisfaction.
One company which has applied the TQM approach is Xerox Corporation which deals with ICT products and services while the Motorola Company is an example of a company which have successfully implemented the six sigma approach in improving the quality of its gods and services.
Reference List
Brown Freelance Limited. (2010). Total Quality Management Essay. Web.
Today, more than ever before, enterprises are increasingly being faced with unparalleled competitive and regulatory demands, along with elevated levels of business uncertainty as they wade through the upsetting waters of contemporary global economy.
On yet another front, the convergence of technology witnessed in the 21st century has made many enterprises increasingly concerned with how to productively transition to an enterprise exploiting information technology to its fullest strategic potential (Morganwalp & Sage, 2003).
In the light of these concerns, it is obvious that executives must embrace a paradigm shift from the traditional enterprise management approaches to more market-oriented approaches, which underlines the need to balance capabilities, manage risks, improve processes and systems, and engage in agile decision-making with a view to achieve the desired business end-states (Mykityshyn & Rouse, 2007).
As has been witnessed in the company, the organization’s Enterprise Architecture (EA) plays a critical role in this transition, particularly in integrating key processes and systems to enable the organization to easily evolve and productively adapt to recurrent technology and business shifts as they occur in the market place (Morganwalp & Sage, 2003).
To retain competitiveness amid the rapidly changing technology and business discourses, therefore, it is fundamental for managers to sample and integrate other management approaches into the EA practice.
Consequently, it is the purpose of this white paper to explicitly detail how one such management approach, known as the Six Sigma approach, can be introduced into the organization’s EA practice with a view to maintain productivity and sustain competitiveness
Brief Overview of the Six Sigma Approach
Over the last couple of decades, the discourse on the need for, and capacity to deliver, continuous improvement of organizational processes and systems has slowly but steadily gained momentum within the business field.
As reported by van Iwaarden et al (2008), this organizational outlook necessitated Motorola to develop the “…concept of Six Sigma in the mid-1980s to improve the performance of key processes, productivity and quality and at the same time reduce costs” (p. 6739).
Mainstream business commentators are of the opinion that the Six Sigma approach was a by-product of internal as well as external drivers of change; not only was Motorola under pressure to undertake continuous improvement in the development of intricate devices involving a multitude of parts with a high prospect of deficiencies in the end product (internal driver), but its customers were demanding that the company improve quality in their final product offerings (external driver).
Sanders (2010) notes that although the Six Sigma approach is defined in multi-faceted dimensions, it is primarily a business philosophy that lays much focus on continuous improvement by, among other things, addressing customer needs and expectations, evaluating business processes and systems, and establishing effective measurement techniques to curtail process variation.
This approach differs from preceding productivity improvement methodologies in that it accentuates the need to focus on quality as defined through the prism of the customer, reduced defects and variations in the end product, and thorough statistical techniques.
The main objective of Six Sigma, according to van Iwaarden et al (2008), is value creation through actively undertaking quality improvement processes. Consequently, the process by which this important facet is achieved, it seems, would involve training of human resources in tools and methods, as well as in problem solving
Available literature (e.g., Lee & Choi, 2006; Sanders, 2010; Johnson, 2006; Hwang, 2006) demonstrates that “DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control)” is not only the most frequently used application of the Six Sigma approach, but also one of the most practical initiatives through which enterprises are able to take active steps towards streamlining their business initiatives and reducing unnecessary waste.
Indeed, as postulated by Sanders (2010), “…this five-step method structures an approach for clearly identifying the desired level of improvement, measuring current performance, identifying the root cause of deviations from the ideal state, eliminating the root causes, and implementing control systems to maintain improvements” (p. 42).
In this perspective, the Six Sigma methodology employs a dominant quality and statistics toolset to enhance process improvement and performance, relative to customer needs and expectations, to a level of 99.99997 percent (Saunders, 2010).
It is important to note that the well documented bottom-line benefits attained by Motorola upon implementing the Six Sigma paradigm to guide the company’s business processes led to the adoption of the approach by other blue-chip companies such as Honeywell (former AlliedSignal), 3M, Sony, ABB and General Electric (Iwaarden at al, 2008).
Today, interest in the adoption of the Six Sigma approach is at an all-time high as concerns on process improvement initiatives for organizations reach an instantiation stage.
Roles of Six Sigma Approach within the Scope of the Enterprise Architecture Practice
Despite increasing awareness of the Enterprise Architecture (EA) in the business arena, and in spite of its elevated importance, scholars and practitioners are yet to develop a standard definition of the concept (Ka-Yin et al, 2009).
According to extant research in organizational development (OD) and strategy implementation, however, the genesis of the acknowledgment of the role of an Enterprise Architecture (EA) as a major contributor to organizational success and competitiveness can be traced back to the seminal works of J.A. Zachman, particularly his landmark publication in 1987 titled ‘A framework for information system’s architecture.’
Upon further synthesis of this new concept, Zachman, quoted in Mathee et al (2006), defined EA as “…descriptive representations (i.e. models) that are relevant for describing an enterprise such that it can be produced to management’s requirements (quality) and maintained over the period of its useful life (change)” (p. 11).
Zachman was categorical that the framework for EA was not ‘the answer’ to the challenges facing the organization; on the contrary, it is to be used as a tool for thinking through the challenges, implying that if the EA practice is applied with understanding, it would be of immense importance to technical and non-technical management equally in dealing with the complications and dynamics of the information age enterprise (Mathee et al, 2006).
Spewak (1992), quoted in Mathee et al (2006), took the perspective of employing EA to, among other things, “…present a conceptual map of an organization from many perspectives – from business, applications, information and technological points of view” (p. 12).
Van der Klashorst (2001), also quoted in Mathee et al (2006), postulated that EA “…typically consists of current and future state models of key components, namely enterprise business architecture, enterprise information architecture, enterprise application architecture, and enterprise-wide technical architecture” (p. 12).
Of course there exists many other definitions of EA, but the stated definitions will inarguably assist in determining the scope of EA practice and, by extension, assist in analyzing the role of Six Sigma approach within such a scope.
From the above definitions, it can be deduced that every organization – public or public – has an EA, whether it is consciously aware of it or not. From the definitions, it also becomes obvious that EA is expansive in scope, though it was initially concerned with information and communication systems and processes.
Currently, the EA framework extends to cover business, information and communication, application, and the technology entities within an organization (Mathee et al, 2006).
Although organizations are increasingly using the EA framework as a means to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and agility of the enterprise, particularly in the entities discussed above, it has come to the attention of scholars and practitioners that many EA programs to date remain detached from the business entity of the framework, and are indeed viewed primarily as technical endeavours (Burton, 2011).
This being the case, it is suggested that the Six Sigma approach, through constant evaluation of business process and systems, can function to move EA beyond the scope of information technology (IT) and, in conjunction with the basic tenets of EA, assist the enterprise to unify the planning, optimization, and designing of its most fundamental business initiatives with the technology environment that enable them.
Many organizational-wide EA programs are led by enterprise architects, who must possess unique capabilities and competencies for the programs to be a success.
The Six Sigma approach, owing to its overemphasis on measuring current performance and discovering the root cause of variations from the ideal state (Johnson, 2006), can be used by enterprise consultants to develop a community of experts who maps for the organization, not only what can or cannot work to achieve optimal performance among and across the entities, but also what can be effectively and efficiently applied to unique and novel situations (Lee & Choi, 2006).
Consequently, the enterprise architects, through Six Sigma-oriented training, must possess the human competencies to align strategic and operational views of business, drive the technology vision, transform and automate operations, facilitate and govern organizational change, mitigate risk and, lastly, integrate people, processes, and technology (CAEP, 2010).
In line with the above, it is a well known fact that the Six Sigma approach, through its DMAIC methodology, concerns itself with implementing lean organization-wide control systems charged with the responsibility of reducing waste and maintaining improvements (Hwang, 2006).
This role can be critical in assisting the EA practice, in its broader context, to design the System of System (SOS) hierarchical levels and in deciding what is best for the enterprise-wide SOS rather that having to rely on disjointed, localized considerations that may not only be time consuming, but also resource depleting (Morganwalp & Sage, 2003).
This implies that the Six Sigma approach have a central role in selecting and streamlining the business processes that the EA practice may wish to synchronize for optimal business results and competitiveness.
Lastly, it should be remembered that the EA practice originally dealt with the implementation of enterprise-wide technology projects. However, the knowledge that a multitude of organizations utilize technology ineptly and/or inefficiently and therefore end up producing too many defective products is in the public domain (Hwang, 2006).
In such a such a scenario, the Six Sigma approach can be incorporated into the EA practice with a view to introduce its powerful toolset that will not only enhance levels of accuracy and quality, but will also introduce aspects of job management, cost reduction, and speed increment to make the end product much more efficient and effective (Johnson, 2006).
Such a disposition will go a long way to enhance and sustain customer satisfaction levels, implying more profits for the enterprise.
Relationship between the Six Sigma Approach & Enterprise Architecture Practice
Two apparently independent paradigms that are capturing the attention of scholars and practitioners in recent years are Six Sigma and the Enterprise Architecture. Both approaches, according to Ravischandran (2006), are largely considered to be powerful management disciplines, but EA has a much broader scope than the Six Sigma approach.
In the light of this discussion, therefore, it can be deduced that both EA and Six Sigma are business-improvement approaches with many overlaps, but also with some dissimilarities (Nash et al, 2006).
Although it is outside the scope of this paper to engage in comparative analysis of the two approaches, it is worthwhile to note that both are guided by different principles but aim to accomplish similar outcomes in terms of contributing to organizational success and competitiveness.
To establish relationships, it can be argued that the EA practice is fundamental when considering the design and development of complex systems within organizations (Long, 2009), but it is the Six Sigma approach that provides the methodology through which such complex business and technology system can be maintained efficiently and effectively within organizations (Hwang, 2006).
While the EA practice strives to achieve alignment of components under common standards that aids change management and guarantee integrated and effective operation, it is the task of the Six Sigma approach to provide the common standards that are used to eliminate defects and avoid wastage (Moosa & Sajid, 2010).
Both approaches, according to Lee & Choi (2006), aim to develop more customer-focussed paradigms that simplify processes and unify efforts across the various hierarchies of the organization, not mentioning that both approaches have been predominantly used to drive technology enablement.
Consequently, these two approaches can be said to be two sides of the same side, only that one side – the EA practice – is larger in scope than the other side, which represents the Six Sigma approach.
Introducing Six Sigma into EA Practice: Management & Technical Activities Involved
To successfully introduce the Six Sigma methodology into the EA practice, a multitude of management and technology activities must not only be present, but must also be harnessed, aligned and directed towards the achievement of effective and efficient systems and processes in the management as well as in the technical fronts (Jochem, 2009).
Aligning the activities involved, according to (Long, 2010), is particularly important if both of these approaches are to be used in complimentary terms as tools for management innovation and growth.
The management’s activities involved in introducing the Six Sigma approach into the EA practice revolves around aspects of “Process Innovation”, “Quality Improvement”, and “Corporate Competitiveness Improvement” (Lee & Choi, 2006).
While process innovation implies the development and implementation of a new or appreciably enhanced production or delivery methodology, quality improvement implies the systematic approach to lessening or eradication of waste, rework, and losses in any business enterprise (Wiklund & Wiklund, 2002).
Corporate competitiveness improvement, on its part, denotes a management activity that emphasizes the capability of an enterprise to offer end-products or services that meet the needs, demands, and expectations of customers (Morganwalp & Sage, 2003). When put under careful analysis, it is revealed that the discussed management activities, in large part determine the direction of Six Sigma initiatives at the organizational level.
The technology activities involved in introducing the Six Sigma Approach into the EA practice revolves around issues of information system, communication channels, policy issues, and education and training (Wiklund & Wiklund, 2002). For instance, when the information system is improved under the Six Sigma initiative, the ability to respond to the needs, demands, and expectations of customers is also improved.
Equally, it is a well known fact that education and training through the various Six Sigma accreditations, such as the green belt accreditation (training for two weeks) and the black belt accreditation (training for two years), goes a long way to not only influence other processes in the organization, but also the personnel involved are up to the task, particularly in ensuring the availability of critical data for analysis as well as in keeping time for sustainable application of the Six Sigma activity (Sanders 2010).
Some consequences may present when attempting to introduce the Six Sigma approach into the EA practice. However, these consequences cannot possibly outmanoeuvre the sublime benefits of engaging in this alignment. Upon introducing the Six Sigma approach, it is expected that employees and management must under extensive training to learn the new language of Six Sigma (Sanders, 2010).
Such training, if not well directed and implemented, may drain scarce organizational resources. Second, it is known Six Sigma is about streamlining processes aimed at achieving business improvement. In the process of such streamlining, some management levels may become redundant, while some employees may have to be dismissed from service.
Such a situation, if not well controlled and guided, may lead to resistance from management and loss of motivation from employees (Long, 2009). Governance and leadership challenges may also present as the organization takes a new turn towards enacting a leaner system and leaner structure of authority and command (Jochem, 2009).
Adequate preparation and professionalism in implementing such an initiative therefore becomes a prerogative rather than an exception.
Conclusion
Through a critical evaluation of existing literature, this paper has demonstrated the many benefits that the company stands to gain in introducing the Six Sigma approach into the EA practice.
The Six Sigma approach will greatly assist the EA practice to understand business processes, actively eliminate the root causes of problems or defects instead of waiting for them to happen before action is taken, improve business processes and systems, and identify tailor-made requirements for organization-wide technology adoption (van Iwaarden et al, 2008).
It has been demonstrated that at present, the EA framework extends to cover business, information and communication, application, and the technology entities within an organization (Mathee et al, 2006).
The company will therefore benefit immensely by introducing this business-improvement approach into yet another broad-based business and technology improvement program that has come to be known as Enterprise Architecture
Reference List
Burton, T.T. (2011). Improve HOW YOU improve. Industrial Engineer, 43(8), 48-53. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier Database.
Centre for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession. (2010). Enterprise Architecture: A Professional Practice Guide. Web.
Hwang, Y.D. (2006). The practices of integrating manufacturing execution systems and Six Sigma methodology. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 31(1/2), 145-154. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.
Jochem, R. (2009). Quality governance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(7), 777-785. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Johnson, A. (2006). Lessons learned from Six Sigma in R&D. Research Technology Management, 49(2), 15-19. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier Database.
Ka-Yin, C., Songhai, L., & Wai-Hung, I. (2009). Enhancing enterprise information integration using Six Sigma. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(5), 537-546. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Lee, K.C., & Choi, B. (2006). Six Sigma management activities and their influence on corporate competitiveness. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(7), 893-911. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Long, A.M. (2009). Enterprise Architecture: Origins, tools, and insights. Air force Journal of Logistics, 33(2), 116-125. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.
Mathee, M.C., Tobin, P.K.J., & Van Der Merwe, P. (2007). The status quo of enterprise architecture implementation in South African financial services companies. South African Journal of Business Management, 38(1), 11-23. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier Database.
Moosa, K., & Sajid, A. (2010). Critical analysis of Six Sigma implementation. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(7), 745-759. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Morganwalp, J., & Sage, A.P. (2003). A system of systems focused enterprise architecture framework and an associated architecture development process. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 3(2-4), 87-105. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Mykityshyn, M.G., & Rouse, W.B. (2007). Supporting strategic enterprise processes: An Analysis of various architectural frameworks. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 6(1/2), 145-175. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Nash, M., Poling, S.R., & Ward, S. (2006). Six Sigma speed. Industrial Engineer, 38(11), 40-44. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier Database.
Ravischandran, J. (2006). Six-sigma milestone: An overall sigma level of an organization. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(8), 973-980. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Sanders, J.H. (2010). Six Sigma myths busted begin. Industrial Engineer, 42(3), 41-46. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.
Van Iwaarden, J., van der Wiele, T., Dale, B., Williams, R., & Bertsch, B. (2008). The Six Sigma improvement approach: A transitional comparison. International Journal of Production Research, 46(23), 6739-6758. Retrieved from Business Source Premier Database.
Wiklund, H., & Wiklund, P.S. (2002). Widening the Six Sigma concept: An approach to improve organizational learning. Total Quality Management, 13(2), 233-239. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier Database.
Six Sigma can be described as a process which increases efficiency and decreases defects in production or operational processes with the end goal being an overall reduction in costs for the company in terms of resources saved. Taking this into consideration any company that suffers from consumer complaints regarding product quality can benefit from implementing various aspects of Six Sigma into their operational structure.
On the other hand what isn’t outright stated is the fact that Six Sigma can be thought of as a constraining and limiting form of management since it requires products, services and methods of operation to conform to a singular overriding plan that emphasizes a particular method of performance in order to achieve a certain end goal.
Problems with Six Sigma
This means that it at times limits management methods related to initiative, thinking outside the box or utilizing methods of management that aren’t necessarily a part of the company’s original management procedure. Based on this, it becomes a question of whether Six Sigma management methods are a necessity instead of an option in a company’s operational structure.
In the case, example provided it can be seen that high product defect rates reported by consumers necessitates the need for significant process change and as such, it can be seen that the implementation of Six Sigma in this particular case is a necessity in order to improve product quality and thus a company’s brand image.
Changes that will occur
Through the use of Six Sigma, it is expected that daily operations within the company will undergo drastic changes in the form of increases to efficiency and reductions in resource wasting operations.
This would involve department restructuring, removing redundant teams or operations, distributing roles among existing staff so as to increase human resource utilization without having to hire more workers, as well as the implementation of new production overseeing processes to ensure compliance to new standards.
Approaches to new projects under the new Six Sigma process would have to coincide with how adaptive such projects can become with the company’s new style of operations, whether they can be implemented quickly, efficiently and at low cost and how to ensure compliance with Six Sigma processes.
Overall it is expected that my management style and method of deductive methodology will actually be severely limited in terms of utilizing methods outside of established company operational procedures as dictated by Six Sigma.
In fact, it is expected that across the entirety of the company’s management structure decisions and methods of operational implementation will take on a “top-down” structure of management resulting in limited freedom in decision making however this should increase operational efficiency and reduce product defects.
From a certain perspective thought it can be stated that the use of Six Sigma cannot be considered entirely good for the company. Its confining and regimented use of statistics and metrics turns employees into numbers rather than people.
In a way, it can be stated that the Six Sigma process stifles creativity in favor of efficiency, which cannot be considered the best possible process in which to proceed in a technology-oriented business environment where innovation is prized above all else.
In fact, the very company that started the Six Sigma process “Motorola” failed to capitalize on changing smartphone technologies and innovations within the past decade resulting in its rivals such as Nokia and Apple, which place greater emphasis on innovation, effectively reducing Motorola’s market share to a third of what it used to be (Colvin, 2011).
It is based on this that while I do agree that greater efficiency and reduction of wasteful resource utilization is an advantage for the company the fact remains that regimented and procedure-oriented methods of management cannot be considered an ideal process to be implemented in light of current market trends where there are fewer barriers to entry and the need for constant innovation.
As such, this necessitates the implementation of certain vertical and horizontal management processes instead of a regimented top-down approach.
Reference
Colvin, G. (2011). Motorola’s Uphill Battle. Fortune International (Europe), 164(1), 34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Total quality management (TQM) and Six Sigma are among the most popular quality management strategies. TQM developed from approaches applied to ensure quality in the early years of 20th century. The approach became well defined in 1950s where Japanese companies applied it to improve quality.
By 1970s, TQM was the popular approach in many organizations in the world. Six Sigma is mostly considered an improvement on TQM. The approach originated from Motorola in early 1980s and has gained popularity with many organizations.
Total Quality Management
TQM refers to a management approach that aims at offering customers with products that meet or go beyond their quality expectations. The approach is focused on customers and ensures all sectors on an organization are keen on quality.
The term ‘total’ indicates that all individuals in an organization must be dedicated towards quality. The approach is based on continuous improvement in all sectors of an organization in order to achieve high quality (Daft & Marcic, 2008).
A number of important principles, with hope that by adhering to the principles an organization can be able to achieve and maintain high quality, drive TQM. An organization that chooses to implement TQM is expected to show commitment to the approach by appropriate initiatives and resource allocation. Top executive management play important to success of TQM and are expected to show leadership towards high quality.
The approach emphasizes on use of appropriate methodology and tools to determine nonconformity and use of measurement when making decisions on quality (Daft & Marcic, 2008).
To achieve quality standards, TQM emphasizes on need for training and ensuring that quality improvement enhances customer satisfaction. Company culture and continuous improvement are the most important principles of TQM (Daft & Marcic, 2008). An organization implementing TQM is expected to develop a culture for high quality and make continuous steps to improve quality continuously.
Nissan Motor Company is one of successful companies that implements TQM. The company was in operational and financial crisis when it chose to implement the principles of TQM. TQM principles enabled the company to improve on quality of its products and increase customer satisfaction.
Six Sigma
Six Sigma is a quality management approach that aims at ensuring that 99.99966 percent of products meet quality specifications. The approach has become very popular with many organizations for setting high expectations on quality. An organization that implements Six Sigma is expected to keep defects below 3.4 defects in a millions manufactured products (Truscott, 2003).
Six Sigma approach seeks to achieve the high quality expectations by identifying and elimination sources of errors. In addition to implementing various quality management methods, Six Sigma leads to quality experts recognized by ‘Green belts’, ‘Black Belts’ and others (Truscott, 2003).
The designations indicate an individual’s expertise in implementing Six Sigma principles. Two methodologies: DMAIC and DMADV are associated with Six Sigma. DMAIC is implemented to improve existing processes while DMADV is applied on new products or processes.
Motorola, Inc. is the best example of organizations that implement Six Sigma. Motorola has implemented Six Sigma since 1981 as its key quality management strategy. The approach has helped the company to provide high quality products consistently. Although the company lost dominance in mobile phones to Nokia in 1990’s, through high quality the company is regaining market share.
Summary
Low quality products and services can be very expensive to an organization. There are several quality management strategies to enhance quality, but Six Sigma and TQM are the most popular. The two approaches have similarity in that they emphasize on companywide culture for quality but Six Sigma set higher standards for quality. Many organizations are abandoning TQM for Six Sigma or integrating the two.
Reference List
Daft, R. & Marcic, D. (2008). Understanding Management. New York: Cengage Learning.
Truscott, W. (2003). Six sigma: continual improvement for business: a practical guide. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
The concept of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) combines various theories of process control and improvement. LSS comprises the Six Sigma model and the Lean Manufacturing approach. The model has been tested in many industries, but it is still new in the construction industry.
Based on Nicole C. Anderson and Jamison V. Kovach’s article, “Reducing Welding Defects in Turnaround Projects: A Lean Six Sigma Case Study,” this report discusses the Lean Six Sigma theory, approach and effectiveness as it relates to organizational development and improvement.
Discussion
Theory
The article discusses the performance of JV Industrial Companies (JVIC) Ltd. before and after the implementation of the Lean Six Sigma. JVIC is a construction, welding, turnaround, and fabrication company based in Houston. Welding is a crucial activity in construction and connection of pipeline sections either during the initial layout or during repair.
The welded connections (butt welds) often deteriorate over time, which may lead to connection failures. A lot of time is spent on ensuring that the butt welds are properly fitted to prevent stress concentration from resulting in connection failures. The connection failures can be due to porosity or a lack of fusion.
Inadequate training, poor task performance, and other welder performance-related issues are the primary causes of connection defects. The cost of training standardized welders as per the requirements of the American Welding Society is very high. The high cost makes it difficult for welding companies to test, rank and classify their workforce. Additionally, welding exposes workers to radiation, affecting their eyesight, leading to defects in the fabrication process (Anderson & Kovach, 2014).
Major companies such as Toyota, Bank of America and General Electric have used Lean manufacturing and six sigma approaches successfully to minimize costs and prevent waste. The LSS model has succeeded where Total Quality Management (TQM) failed. Research suggests that the Six Sigma model can be used to reduce irregularities in workflow and to provide better project appraisal methods (Pande, Neuman, & Cavanagh, 2000).
Lean manufacturing deals with the improvement of quality through streamlining processes with the objective of minimizing waste. Anderson and Kovach’s article focuses on the Lean Six Sigma’s DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control) model (Anderson & Kovach, 2014).
Company Background
JVIC’s specializes in piping, customized fabrication, bolted connections, tower revamping, reconfigurations, and welding. The standard repair rate is 2% on project turnarounds. In the event that the repair rate increases, JVIC pays for the extra cost, which happened severally in 2011. The company performed a Lean Six Sigma to address the issues and to improve customer satisfaction. The DMAIC was implemented in various departments to achieve the set objectives (Anderson & Kovach, 2014).
Define Phase
The purpose of the define phase was to identify the problem and establish the solutions required to solve the defects. The project management determined that the goal was to reduce the butt weld repair rate to an acceptable value. Every step of the welding process was inspected for errors and measures were implemented to impede error.
Measure Phase
The goal of the measuring phase was to assess the appraisal methods used by JVIC before the implementation of Lean Six Sigma. A quality controller (QC) recorded information relating to the previous measurement system in a database and later analyzed for errors over a nine month period in 2011. Then, the QC suggests methods of improving the measurement system.
Analyze Phase
The project team employed a five-why analysis to brainstorm and identify the causes of the increased repair rates. The potential causes of higher repair rates were grouped into materials, environment, measurement, methods, machines, and people.
The failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used to identify potential problems in each step of the welding process. The team allocated a risk priority number (RPN) to various issues based on occurrence, severity, and detection. The researchers identified the problems associated with the highest RPN as the root causes to the defective welds.
Improve Phase
The project team discovered that incorrect windshielding and use of bad welding techniques were the two main root causes of defective butt welds. The improve phase involved further brainstorming with the objective of finding solutions to the problems. Various solutions were proposed for each cause and the best four rated solutions approved by JVIC management. Several months down the line, improvement checks showed that JVIC had saved $90,000 in labor costs.
Control Phase
In this phase, the objective is to sustain the improvements and gains made upon implementation of Lean Six Sigma. The control plan involved training employees to maintain standards, recording improvements over time, and a performance appraisal.
Conclusion
Comparing the Six Sigma quality management approach learned in class and the model proposed by Anderson and Kovach, it is evident that the concepts of DMAIC are constant. However, the article focuses primarily on waste reduction and cost control rather than Total Quality Management (TQM).
In contrast, the article adds the concept of lean management to the Six Sigma model, making it more advanced compared to the Six Sigma Way. The article’s focus on Lean Six Sigma proves that TQM has become obsolete in the field of contemporary quality management approaches.
Reference List
Anderson, N., & Kovach, J. (2014). Reducing Welding Defects in Turnaround Projects: A Lean Six Sigma Case Study. Quality Engineering, 26(2), 168-181, DOI: 10.1080/08982112.2013.801492
Pande, P., Neuman, R., & Cavanagh, R. (2000). The Six Sigma Way: how GE, Motorola, and other top companies are honing their performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Starwood Hotels has been keen on ensuring that they improve the performance of the entire system. This firm operates in various continents and targets the high-end part of the market. The market has a stiff competition posed by other high-end hotels like the Hilton Hotel. However, Starwood Hotels have managed to deal with costs and increase their profit margin within the market. Prevention cost is one of the strategies used by this firm. The firm has taken measures to reduce accidents within the facility. This has come at a cost, but in the end, the benefit generated from this outmatches the cost incurred in the prevention of such incidents.
This borrows a leaf from the Total Quality Management. Appraisal cost is another very important cost to incur in order to improve quality of the output. Starwood has been keen to ensure that defects are identified as soon as possible, and rectified before the process is brought to an end. This has ensured that most of the products offered by this firm are defect free, making it more profitable. This has also attracted more customers for the firm. Internal failure cost is another cost that this firm has been keen to incur in order to ensure that the firm offers customers total satisfaction. It has been keen to eliminate products that after processing, seems to have some defects. The last cost that this firm has incurred as a measure of reducing cost of production and increasing profitability are the external failure cost. When the product is delivered to the customers but it is realized that there are some defects, the firm would recall the product and incur the cost in order to ensure customer satisfaction.
Starwood Hotel management has employed Six Sigma as a means of improving the output of their facilities, including their labor force. Motorola invented this strategy in 1980s in an attempt to improve quality of their products. It gained fame in the mid 1990s. It is currently considered as one of the most important tools of managing the production process in an attempt to reduce the cost, but produce goods of high quality. To this hotel, Six Sigma can be used in an attempt to ensure that the products of this firm are as per the specifications desired by the quality management unit. Within the various chains of hotel that this firm runs, the management can integrate quality in its products. Six Sigma would help this firm avoid various costs identified above. Given the competitive nature of the market posed by other firms like Hilton Hotel, this firm must be in a position to produce products of very high quality.
The type of customers served by this firm laid more emphasis on quality than on the price. The quality of the products can therefore not be negotiated. The firm would charge premium prices for the products. However, this is should be directly reflected in the quality of the products that are delivered to the customers. In order to ensure that Six Sigma works properly, all the employees must understand its principles, irrespective of the positions they hold in the hotels. They have to appreciate the importance of the application of six sigma and the expectations from it. Done properly, the result would be pleasant, and the firm would manage to contain competition in the market.
The Six Sigma is a methodology that is aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficacy of a variety of business and manufacturing processes (Drohomeretski et al. 805). When it comes to manufacturing, one of the ultimate goals of utilizing the Six Sigma methodologies consists in achieving the rate of defects occurrence in the products that is lower than 3.4 defects in one million opportunities (Rahman and Talapatra 1); that is, for every ten million items produced, not more than 34 items are allowed to have a defect.
A part of the Six Sigma methodology is the DMAIC tool (Drohomeretski et al. 808), the repeated implementation of which may help an organization to more efficaciously progress towards the defect rate of 3.4 defects per million opportunities, as defined by Six Sigma. It is important to point out that DMAIC is an abbreviation that stands for the five steps which comprise the instrument itself, that is, Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (Drohomeretski et al. 808). The definitions for these steps are provided below (Rahman and Talapatra 2).
Analyze
This is the third stage of the DMAIC instrument, at which the analysis of the causes of the defects in the production is conducted, and methods for addressing these causes are identified and prioritized in accordance with their perceived effectiveness.
Improve
This is the fourth stage of the DMAIC tool, which is aimed at testing the previously identified methods for addressing the reasons for the presence of the defects in the manufactured goods. These methods are tested using experiments and statistical tools, and then the best ones are utilized for improving the quality of goods.
Implementation in General
The implementation of the DMAIC method can be carried out in any manufacturing facility in which the rate of defects and/or the level of the effectiveness are suboptimal and, therefore, require improvements.
Analyze
After the goals of the improvement process are defined, and the factors which are to be enhanced are selected and measured so as to quantitatively identify the need for their improvement, these factors are further analyzed in order to reveal which causes result in the presence of defects in the products that are manufactured by the organization. It is possible for the improvement team to engage in brainstorming sessions so as to name the possible causes of such defects; these possible causes will then need to be confirmed as true reasons for defects or ruled out as false threats. After that, it is required to identify the possible ways for addressing the true causes of defects in the products, compare these ways, and prioritize the ones which appear to be most effective.
Improve
After the analysis of the causes of defects in the manufactured production and the selection and prioritization of methods for addressing them, it is needed to conduct a number of experiments and employ the instruments of statistical process control in order to confirm the effectiveness of the chosen methods and identify which ones of these methods work best. After the best ways for enhancing the quality of the produced goods and reducing the rate of defects in these products have been identified, it is required to implement these best methods so as to improve the quality of the manufactured production and lower the defect rates.
Implementation of the DMAIC Tool in the Given Case Study
This section of the paper summarizes the manner in which the DMAIC instrument was employed in the casting process as described by Rahman and Talapatra (3-6).
Analyze
As has been previously stressed, this step of the DMAIC process is aimed at analyzing the problems and identifying the potential causes of the defects in the products, and finding out which methods may be used so as to address these problems. At this phase of the DMAIC tool implementation for enhancing the casting process, the data which has been previously gathered during the “Measure” step was thoroughly examined, and the improvement team visualized these results by creating a flow chart, which can be found in Figure 1 below (Rahman and Talapatra 4).
Figure 1. The flow chart visualizing the results of the analysis of the potential causes of surface roughness in the casting process. Source: Rahman and Talapatra (4).
On the whole, the authors point out that two process factors, namely,
the temperature at which the pouring was carried out,
the size of the grains of the molding sand, had a direct impact on the magnitude of the roughness of the surface of the products (Rahman and Talapatra 4).
This caused the quality improvement team to further investigate these two factors and check the possible methods for addressing them during the next step of the DMAIC process (Rahman and Talapatra 4).
Improve
In order to enhance the quality of the manufactured products, the quality improvement team used the technique labeled the Design of Experiments (DOE), which is a statistical tool for investigating the influence of a number of factors during the “Improve” phase of the DMAIC instrument (Rahman and Talapatra 4). The authors conducted a two-way ANOVA so as to compare the mean surface roughness resulting from different combinations of two factors – temperature and grain size; four different temperatures, namely, +700°C, +725°C, +750°C, and +775°C (it should be stressed that the melting temperature of aluminum is +660°C), as well as three different sizes of the grains of the molding sand, namely, 0.03 inches, 0.015 inches, and 0.0075 inches, were used for the analysis (Rahman and Talapatra 5).
The ANOVA revealed that the grain size, as well as the temperature, both had a highly statistically significant impact on the roughness of the surface (p <.0001 in both cases) (Rahman and Talapatra 5). Running further analytical procedures allowed for identifying the grain size and the temperature which would allow for maximally decreasing the magnitude of surface roughness and reducing the number of defects related to this issue to a minimum; it was discovered that the utilization of the temperature of +700°C, as well as of the size of the grain of the molding sand equal to 0.0075 inches, permitted for the maximal improvement of the mentioned parameters (Rahman and Talapatra 5).
It is stressed that as a result of the use of the combination of these temperature and grain size, it was possible to decrease the amount of the roughness of the surface by approximately ½; the rate of defects per million opportunities was reduced dramatically: from 609,302 to 304,651 (Rahman and Talapatra 5). The authors also point out that, apart from decreasing the magnitude of surface roughness, several other defects in the products, such as gas porosity, shrinkage defects, and some others, were also lowered thanks to the utilization of the DMAIC instrument; this confirms the effectiveness of the DMAIC tool for reducing the frequency of defects in products in the process of their manufacturing (Rahman and Talapatra 5-6).
Works Cited
Drohomeretski, Everton, et al. “Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma: An Analysis Based on Operations Strategy.” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 52, no. 3, 2014, pp. 804-824.
Rahman, Abdur, and Subrata Talapatra. “Defects Reduction in Casting Process by Applying Six Sigma Principles and DMAIC Problem Solving Methodology (A Case Study).” International Conference on Mechanical, Industrial and Materials Engineering, vol. 2015, 2015, pp. 1-6.
