2. Evolution of Continuous Improvement Programs and Six Sigma
2.6. Six Sigma and quality focused CI programs
While our first seven propositions are about the inherent elements of the Six Sigma program and about the fit of the CI program with organizational contexts, we now turn to the questions of whether and how Six Sigma corrects deficiencies identified in previous CI programs. Academic interest should focus on analyzing whether Six Sigma has practices that provide incrementally better process improvement in organizations than
previous CI programs. The following discussion is aimed at developing propositions about such incremental features of the Six Sigma program. One of the main
contributions of Six Sigma is the introduction of an implementation structure that institutionalizes the idea of sustainable continuous improvement. Even though the
principle of continuous improvement has existed prior to Six Sigma, there has been a lack of guidance on how it can be ingrained into the psyche of all employees and more
important, how it can be sustained. The success of Toyota in accomplishing this task is exemplary – the culture of Toyota is often seen as being the facilitating and
differentiating factor. Six Sigma provides a way of introducing the cultural DNA of the Toyota production system (Spear, 2004; Spear and Bowen 1999) into the genetic makeup of organizations. The principles of scientific management being followed in every action by every employee and the use of ‘senseis’ as coaches at Toyota are paralleled under the aegis of Six Sigma, albeit in a more formalized manner.
Besides continuous improvement at Toyota, Japanese management practices (see e.g. Inkpen, 2005, Liker and Wu, 2000) have had a significant influence on the
progression of quality focused CI programs in the United States. In addition, factors such as globalization, technological advancements and changing consumer needs have altered the makeup of quality-focused CI programs. Thus it is insightful to trace the progression of quality focused CI programs (for detailed historical perspectives of quality practices see Cole, 1999; and Yong and Wilkinson, 2002) culminating in an analysis of the incremental practices under the banner of Six Sigma.
2.6.1. Development of quality-focused CI programs:
Tracing the evolution of quality programs from Quality Circles thru TQM, Cole (1999) pointed out that under the old model preceding TQM, quality evolved within dedicated functional departments consisting of small numbers of quality experts reporting to manufacturing. The purpose of these quality experts was mainly defect detection. In the TQM model, the definition of quality was expanded to include customer oriented perspectives and therefore included the ability to efficiently make changes in response to customer needs (Giroux and Landry, 1998). The scope of quality became dynamic, necessitating the need for flexibility and resulting in a model that empowered employees.
Organizations recognized the need for improving cross-functional co-ordination and maintaining a unified strategic outlook while continually making process improvements.
The accumulation of these various principles under the expanded view of quality labeled TQM is classified among three main percepts: (a) focus on customer satisfaction, (b) continuous improvement and (3) total system view of the organization (Sitkin et al., 1994).
The development of TQM took place in parallel with industry changes in the areas of flexibility and cost reduction. Quality, which was earlier treated as a tradeoff with cost and /or flexibility started being treated as an omnipresent priority (Flynn and Flynn, 2004). The integration of TQM with just-in-time (JIT) and human resource management (HRM) practices lead to the birth of lean manufacturing (Cua et al., 2001;
Shah and Ward, 2003). For academic research it became increasingly difficult to discriminate activities related to TQM from those related to JIT, total preventive
maintenance (TPM) and HRM as evidenced from the various labels attached to quality, just-in-time manufacturing and lean manufacturing initiatives (Ahire et al., 1996,
Koufteros et al., 1998). The definition and scope of TQM itself morphed and broadened over time (Hackman and Wageman, 1995).
An unintended consequence of the broadening of the scope of quality initiatives under TQM and the addition of organizational change agendas to quality programs was that the underlying structure and rigor were sacrificed. With decentralization, quality became everyone’s responsibility and no one’s. Cole (1999, p. 45) cites examples of companies like American Express and Corning to illustrate that as quality became every function’s and business division’s responsibility the importance of an exclusive quality department and leader declined. During this extended evolution of TQM, a number of gaps in the way organizations sought to implement the program became apparent (Poirier and Tokarz, 1996); these are listed in Table 2.2 along with the effects they had on
organizational performance.
In fact, failures in TQM implementation in these areas are often attributed to lack of leadership (e.g. Beer, 2003; Leonard and McAdam, 2003). Under TQM
implementations, organizational leaders failed to engender the commitment of employees and generate open discussions about the progress of quality from a holistic perspective going beyond cross-functional boundaries (Lemak et al., 2002). A closer look at the content of TQM, however, reveals that it fails to provide guidance about creating such a quality culture. In the absence of instituted practices it becomes difficult for leaders of large complex organizations operating in dynamic environments to continually motivate
employees throughout the ranks to proactively seek out the overall organizational benefit while maintaining a systems view. The alternative avenue of intrinsic motivation
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976) for generating employee enthusiasm through work characteristics alone has not proven to be effective, especially in Western firms (Senge, 1999).
A superimposed structure specifically for coordinating long-term organizational deployment and daily operational implementations of quality practices can go a long way in creating a sustained quality culture. This is empirically supported in the context of TQM; Douglas and Judge Jr. (2001) found structural elements to have significant moderating effects on the success of TQM. Six Sigma introduces structures for organizational and operational level implementation of practices and addresses this deficiency in TQM implementations (Antony, 2004; Pfeifer et al, 2004; Revere and Black, 2003).
Proposition 8: The underlying gaps in TQM deployments are addressed through Six Sigma in the following ways:
1. The structure of its program deployment – standardized training, systematic project selection and use of periodic quality system reviews provides a unified direction to the quality program
2. The DMAIC framework provides structure for project executions and ensures focus on proactive and data based changes related to customer value
3. The continuity maintained by the trained experts and the repository of project reports facilitates accumulation of learning and learning across projects.
These elements of management are critical for successful pursuit of well established quality principles and practices (Beer, 2003). In the next section we explore the
incremental benefits that Six Sigma offers over previous quality-focused CI programs.