Comments on: Six Sigma-Love It or Hate It? http://www.sixsigmatraining.org/introduction-to-six-sigma/six-sigma-love-it-or-hate-it.html?source=rss Lean Six Sigma Training and Information Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:45:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Thomas Pyzdek http://www.sixsigmatraining.org/introduction-to-six-sigma/six-sigma-love-it-or-hate-it.html/comment-page-1#comment-25 Thomas Pyzdek Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:45:49 +0000 http://www.sixsigmatraining.org/?p=1546#comment-25 I received this response to this posting from LinkedIn: "While I agree with much of your perspective, I take exception to the the statement that R&D is inherently and unavoidably wasteful. Waste is defined by its economic value. A well planned well executed and effectively analyzed experiment has value, even if the intended result is not achieved. The learning acquired has value. To call this waste invites and reinforces the often cited conflict between corporate leadership and R&D." Here's my response: A rose by any other name... I think we need to call a spade a spade here and work to change management's misconception. When "the intended result is not achieved" most people call this failure and view the expended resources as waste. Why not just admit that such outcomes are an inherent part of the discovery process and learn to deal with it? Six Sigma, lean and quality aren't the only evidence of management's abhorrence of waste, it's an integral part of management. The conflict between management and R&D is largely due to the ambiguity of R&D activities and the difficulty in "managing" them. Management, including Six Sigma, is all about trying to eliminate uncertainty to help us make better decisions. The less variability, the less uncertainty. But when this philosophy is applied to R&D, it hampers the discovery process. By the way, I want to separate the "R" from the "D" in R&D. While I believe there are inherent conflicts between traditional management practices and research, I do not think this is the case with development. Once a research discovery has been made, the development process truly is a manageable process and Six Sigma, Lean, and Quality principles can and should be applied. I received this response to this posting from LinkedIn:
“While I agree with much of your perspective, I take exception to the the statement that R&D is inherently and unavoidably wasteful. Waste is defined by its economic value. A well planned well executed and effectively analyzed experiment has value, even if the intended result is not achieved. The learning acquired has value. To call this waste invites and reinforces the often cited conflict between corporate leadership and R&D.”

Here’s my response:

A rose by any other name…

I think we need to call a spade a spade here and work to change management’s misconception. When “the intended result is not achieved” most people call this failure and view the expended resources as waste. Why not just admit that such outcomes are an inherent part of the discovery process and learn to deal with it? Six Sigma, lean and quality aren’t the only evidence of management’s abhorrence of waste, it’s an integral part of management. The conflict between management and R&D is largely due to the ambiguity of R&D activities and the difficulty in “managing” them. Management, including Six Sigma, is all about trying to eliminate uncertainty to help us make better decisions. The less variability, the less uncertainty. But when this philosophy is applied to R&D, it hampers the discovery process.

By the way, I want to separate the “R” from the “D” in R&D. While I believe there are inherent conflicts between traditional management practices and research, I do not think this is the case with development. Once a research discovery has been made, the development process truly is a manageable process and Six Sigma, Lean, and Quality principles can and should be applied.

]]>