Why Don't Six Sigma Devotees Want Their Claims Of Quality Improvement Checked?

Table of Contents: Select a Link to be Taken to That Section

Executive Summary

Six Sigma followers are very assertive in their claims of the effectiveness of Six Sigma on manufacturing quality.
They, however, become very defensive when we check for evidence.

Introduction

When we have brought up the topic of how we can’t find evidence that Six Sigma leads to higher quality outcomes, we have normally have been told by Six Sigma followers that none of the quality measurements that we use are valid. Why do Six Sigma followers have such a reticence to test whether Six Sigma results in better quality outcomes.

This article includes a discussion between me and another Six Sigmaer on this very topic.

My Comment on the Lack of Quality Outcomes For Ford

Ford was doing a lot of virtue signaling with Six Sigma, but I have read the Consumer Reports quality surveys for decades and I don’t ever recall Ford performing well in them. Can you jog my memory?

Response From A Six Sigmaer On My Question Of Why Ford Did Not Perform Well In The Consumer Reports Automobile Quality Survey

Do not confuse an improvement program with a quality system. In addition Consumer Reports and J.D. Power awards regard product quality perception. As a software resource and researcher that is the best I can do for your memory.

My Response #1: Removing JD Power and Associates From The Discussion To Focus on Consumer Reports

Well to begin, JD Power is not a legitimate research entity. JD Power sells awards, mostly to low-quality car companies like GM, that perform poorly in Consumer Reports’ ratings. See JD Power explained in the article How Gartner Is A Fake Research Entity Like JD Power And Associates. You can also see how Consumer Reports compares very favorably in its research in the article How Gartner Research Compares To Real Research Entities.

So it is important to separate JD Power from Consumer Reports (CR). I would never point to JD Power as evidence of quality, and I did not include JD Power in my comment.

On the primary topic, I don’t see how it can be said that CR measures perception of car quality. CR’s sends out surveys to those that own that specific make, model, and year, and then collects the results. This is first-hand experience. I fill out the survey myself and have been sufficiently impressed with CR to be a member for around 25 years.

So I think what you are saying is the CR car quality study cannot be used to measure car quality. However, I am not aware of a superior survey on automotive quality.

Response from Six Sigmaer

Developing a survey (instrument) is very technical. I mentioned “perceptions” because depending upon how the questions are stated they can introduce a bias into answers. As a researcher you may be familiar with the statistics behind data.

I included J.D. Power due to the importance placed upon the publication of awards in marketing and influencing perceptions in the auto industry.

My Response #2: Removing JD Power and Associates From The Discussion To Focus on Consumer Reports

Ok, let us leave out JDP because I did not refer to them. But on you’re point of survey quality — there are a lot of essential factors to the survey created by CR. I think the questions make sense and measure quality. Some people do not like CR because they believes that too many of the questions are related to things like the fit and finish of the car, whereas they only wants the mechanical items measured. I disagree with him because I rent cars where I don’t like the fit and finish, so to me, that is quality. GM and Ford, in particular, have a long-term problem with this. Now, does it stop the car from being used — no. But it is the experience that is reduced. So, I say this to acknowledge that survey questions are always controversial among those that work in surveys, and there are a lot of bad surveys. I am not going to defend all surveys. And there are a lot of very low quality surveys out there.

However, the CR survey is a good barometer for auto quality, and there is no other reliable survey I am aware of if it isn’t. And if we remove CR, then there is no way, again, I am aware of, for verifying the claims that the Six Sigma programs by various auto manufacturers worked or did not work.

In a previous debate, and in the article Why Did No One Notice that GE Was Not Known For High Quality Manufacturing?, I reviewed the quality of GE light bulbs using Amazon ratings. I found that GE had lower average quality than other bulb manufacturers. But I was told that Amazon ratings are not reliable by Six Sigmaers, even though I have been using these ratings for many years to good outcomes. I then observed that GE’s zenith in quality was back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s when they had a fantastic brand in appliances. This was before Six Sigma at GE, which began in the 1980s. All of my grandparents bought GE appliances, and they used them for decades. However, GE’s appliance division went into a steep decline, and the quality was reduced, and if you will notice, no one talks about buying GE appliances anymore.

As you can see, I have tried to find evidence that Six Sigma programs lead to higher quality levels in the manufactured product, and I can’t find it. In the case of Toyota, which continues to be the leading car company in quality, they never used Six Sigma. I want to point out something else. In addition to having Six Sigma people disagree with me, I have been insulted by Six Sigmaers for what amounts to trying to find evidence that Six Sigma did what it said.

If Six Sigma works, there has to be more to it than simply describing how fantastic it is. That is it has to move beyond assertion to testing by an independent entity. I run an independent research entity. My entity, Brightwork Research & Analysis does not receive consulting revenue (or any other revenue) from Six Sigma or receive consulting revenue (or other revenue) to prove that Six Sigma is not beneficial. The problem is that the vast majority of those providing information on Six Sigma have a financial bias in favor of Six Sigma. I can introduce thousands of consulting companies that will say ABC or XYZ works, and it just so happens they have people ready to bill hours in ABC or XYZ right now. That is, the claims by consulting firms that have a billing practice in that area mean exactly zero.

I have been asking for Six Sigmaers to provide evidence of the positive outcome to quality from Six Sigma. That outcome must exceed the quality average for the area. And I have never gotten that. Instead, I have gotten either a reading list of Six Sigma books or unvalidatable explanations of a Six Sigma project that cannot be traced to any outcome.

An Established Pattern of Providing False Information or Overlooking Information That Calls Into Question the Effectiveness of Six Sigma

One might say this is because Six Sigma does not like the outcome of the measurement. This combines with several other dishonest features of Six Sigmaers. One is that they routinely make false claims about the origins of Six Sigma. One of these false claims I address in the article Six Sigma Was Not Based Upon the Quality Work of Deming. This means that Six Sigmaers are very comfortable either providing information they know to be false or repeating information they have heard, without checking if that information is true. Secondly, as companies that used Six Sigma have failed or gone into decline, Six Sigma supporters never observe these failures, as is covered in the article GE Decline Impact the Cult of Six Sigma.

Conclusion

As noted by my commentary, there is an established pattern by Six Sigmers to deny any quality measurement for companies that implement Six Sigma. Every measure of quality I have tried to use, either Consumer Reports, Amazon reviews or other have been denied by Six Sigma followers as not useful. And furthermore, I have been repeatedly insulted by Six Sigmaers for trying to use any measurement to prove that Six Sigma does what it says it does.