What fucking irks me about shit like Six Sigma is that, even from the exact description Malkor gave, all it's saying is "fix the problem."
Seriously, let's take this one step at a time:
* Define the process improvement goals that are consistent with customer demands and enterprise strategy.
What do we need to fix?
* Measure the current process and collect relevant data for future comparison.
Make sure you record what needs fixed.
* Analyze to verify relationship and causality of factors. Determine what the relationship is, and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered.
Find out what's breaking it.
* Improve or optimize the process based upon the analysis using techniques like Design of Experiments.
Fix it.
* Control to ensure that any variances are corrected before they result in defects. Set up pilot runs to establish process capability, transition to production and thereafter continuously measure the process and institute control mechanisms.
Make sure you really fix it.
I want to vomit.
Fair enough, but what are you fixing?
Sometimes it's not as simple as 'this machine on the assembly line screws up 10% of the bolts it's designed to handle'. Sometimes it's 'we could pump out our product 20% faster if we didn't have this limiting step in the way'. Companies will often get complacent once their manufacturing processes are in place and not actively seek out ways to improve what they think is an already capped rate of production and defect rate. It doesn't have to be that way, which is the goal of the process.
Ok, what the fuck? I read this 6 sigma thing and I'm thinking "ok that's your basic experimental process".
Why are all management philosophies essentially a hopeless bastardization of you know, basic problem solving or scientific thought, with method validation and actual data removed?
It's all code for alleged panaceas which are the same damn thing repackaged and buzzworded.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Ok, what the fuck? I read this 6 sigma thing and I'm thinking "ok that's your basic experimental process".
Why are all management philosophies essentially a hopeless bastardization of you know, basic problem solving or scientific thought, with method validation and actual data removed?
It's all code for alleged panaceas which are the same damn thing repackaged and buzzworded.
You see, in the business world, it's not problem solvers that are in short supply. It's ego circle jerks that make sure no one catches on to the fact that everyone there is under motivated, lazy when unsupervised, and underemployed. If we didn't have a proper chain of intellectual custody over inter- and intra- business concepts, then sooner or later someone, somewhere, would notice that our workforce could be trimmed by 1/3-1/2 just by sending home the people that don't contribute a whole fuck of a lot. The Peters that only do about 20 minutes of real work. They're in the goddamn majority in most fields. When confronted with work, instead of doing that work, they make noises about process refinement and reporting paradigms so the the work will disappear and the person who gave it to them will be punished with more red tape. It's the perverse new darwinism of the cubicle, and don't ever leave it if you intend on going back, because if you do anything where everyone around you wants to work and doesn't fuck around, you'll get used to it and you'll be the weird one.
I remember when I worked corporate security for DuPont for a little bit, I saw little memos exalting Six Sigma and little Dilbert cartoons and articles dumping on Six Sigma at about a 1:2 ratio.
It'd be one thing if this was one of their manufacturing plants, but this was their Experimental Labs, and seemed kind of silly to have a rigid process at the center of where you're supposed to be innovating.
Anything that just makes its way into management-speak. Simply because people bring it up to sound smart without thinking whether or not it would work in their specific situation.
I just got asked to design and roll-out an appraisal system in my company. We had NOTHING prior, and a management attitude resistant to any kind of change. So I designed a very simple template, that we can add to and expand once we actually adopt the practice of regular reviews.
I sat there in a meeting with the owner who spun around and said "what about '360 reviews?'. I looked at him and said "you would have to go pretty far to find another company currently as bad at this as we are. 360's are notoriously difficult. I see your point, but I think we should learn to walk before we start to run".
It just irritated me that he'd obviously not really thought it through.
There's a clear need for QA and process improvement. The problem seems to me that organizations try to disperse the responsibility for this across the entire organization rather than hiring a few new people to really centrally drive the system. It's asinine to force every worker to shoulder the administrative burden of this shit.
In every company I've ever worked in there has been some version of this. The idea that X task is something everyone, or every department, should do a little bit rather than that there should be a centralized responsibility for it. It is generally a disaster.
Ok, what the fuck? I read this 6 sigma thing and I'm thinking "ok that's your basic experimental process".
Why are all management philosophies essentially a hopeless bastardization of you know, basic problem solving or scientific thought, with method validation and actual data removed?
It's all code for alleged panaceas which are the same damn thing repackaged and buzzworded.
mmhmm. I'm reading that thing and thinking, "No duh guys, are you saying you weren't already doing this shit?" The process seems like it should be completely obvious to anyone who isn't a head injury victim.
I tell you what is annoying: those stupid motivator posters have escaped their corporate hellholes and taken up residence in the main stairwell of my uni library. What the fuck is that, we're not even a business! The first few times I saw them, I assumed they must be the Demotivators' work and spent several minutes looking for teh funney >_<
This kind of confirms my impression that librarians have no sense of either humor or irony.
There's a clear need for QA and process improvement. The problem seems to me that organizations try to disperse the responsibility for this across the entire organization rather than hiring a few new people to really centrally drive the system. It's asinine to force every worker to shoulder the administrative burden of this shit.
In every company I've ever worked in there has been some version of this. The idea that X task is something everyone, or every department, should do a little bit rather than that there should be a centralized responsibility for it. It is generally a disaster.
The reason for this is usually that its these departments that ned to lead the changes to make the desired improvelemnts. A lot of people really resent an "outsider" telling them where they are going wrong.
I'm not saying its right. Its just why a lot of them struggle.
What fucking irks me about shit like Six Sigma is that, even from the exact description Malkor gave, all it's saying is "fix the problem."
That's what immediately struck me.
It seems as if it's just saying "use some common sense, logic and basic problem-solving, find out what's wrong and fix it", but wrapped-up in useless jargon.
At least they didn't throw "synergy" into the damn mix.
Ok, what the fuck? I read this 6 sigma thing and I'm thinking "ok that's your basic experimental process".
Exactly. That's what I thought. They even throw in "design of experiments", which sounds like a term that would come out of a ninth grade science textbook.
MY dad worked for an employee owned corporation for a while and it seems to me to be a really great setup. The manegment is elected from regular employees. All the company's shares are owned by employees. They get a certain number of them a year they work there but cannot sell them until they leave the company making stock manipulation damn near impossible.
What fucking irks me about shit like Six Sigma is that, even from the exact description Malkor gave, all it's saying is "fix the problem."
That's what immediately struck me.
It seems as if it's just saying "use some common sense, logic and basic problem-solving, find out what's wrong and fix it", but wrapped-up in useless jargon.
At least they didn't throw "synergy" into the damn mix.
Ok, what the fuck? I read this 6 sigma thing and I'm thinking "ok that's your basic experimental process".
Exactly. That's what I thought. They even throw in "design of experiments", which sounds like a term that would come out of a ninth grade science textbook.
Lesson One: Business isn't rocket science. There are some awfully stupid people that make an awful lot of money.
Just had a job interview today for "Operational Excellence & Compliance Team Leader", and I only knew most of what they were saying because of this thread.
Just really saying thanks really, was a pretty wierd interview and could have been far worse. Don't think I'll be taking the job even if its offered though.
Just had a job interview today for "Operational Excellence & Compliance Team Leader", and I only knew most of what they were saying because of this thread.
Just really saying thanks really, was a pretty wierd interview and could have been far worse. Don't think I'll be taking the job even if its offered though.
It seems as if it's just saying "use some common sense, logic and basic problem-solving, find out what's wrong and fix it", but wrapped-up in useless jargon.
Well, it's the corporate world. They're allergic to common sense. You have to wrap it up in a candy coating of Fuckwitese or else they'll reject it like a child spitting out his medicine.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
It seems as if it's just saying "use some common sense, logic and basic problem-solving, find out what's wrong and fix it", but wrapped-up in useless jargon.
Well, it's the corporate world. They're allergic to common sense. You have to wrap it up in a candy coating of Fuckwitese or else they'll reject it like a child spitting out his medicine.
I've become increasingly convinced the problem isn't that there simply aren't enough smart people in the world. There are too many leadership positions relative to the number of intelligent people that are willing to work in business, so it's simply inevitable that low grade retards are going to get in, the kind of people that really need stuff like "if something isn't working, you should find out why and fix it" explained to them.
The buzz words in business are just the inevitable result of the inadequate people needing intelligent sounding things to say without all that effort of actually thinking and their love of shiny distractions.
Glad I work for a school board and our IT department is left alone. We are presented with a problem and told to fix it, how we fix it is our concern. Course it screws me up at times cause I was at Dell before and still have the corporate mindset in some things. Thank god I have no real idea what you are all talking about though.
It seems as if it's just saying "use some common sense, logic and basic problem-solving, find out what's wrong and fix it", but wrapped-up in useless jargon.
Well, it's the corporate world. They're allergic to common sense. You have to wrap it up in a candy coating of Fuckwitese or else they'll reject it like a child spitting out his medicine.
I've become increasingly convinced the problem isn't that there simply aren't enough smart people in the world. There are too many leadership positions relative to the number of intelligent people that are willing to work in business, so it's simply inevitable that low grade retards are going to get in, the kind of people that really need stuff like "if something isn't working, you should find out why and fix it" explained to them.
The buzz words in business are just the inevitable result of the inadequate people needing intelligent sounding things to say without all that effort of actually thinking and their love of shiny distractions.
I think it's more that most intelligent people are pretty acutely aware of the responsibilities of any sort of leadership position and just don't want it. I know I try to avoid leadership positions around uni (although this is largely because in my case I end up with a group who won't question my ideas enough, which I consider sort of a vital part of not making obvious mistakes).
MY dad worked for an employee owned corporation for a while and it seems to me to be a really great setup. The manegment is elected from regular employees. All the company's shares are owned by employees. They get a certain number of them a year they work there but cannot sell them until they leave the company making stock manipulation damn near impossible.
When did it stop appearing to be a really great setup?
It seems as if it's just saying "use some common sense, logic and basic problem-solving, find out what's wrong and fix it", but wrapped-up in useless jargon.
Well, it's the corporate world. They're allergic to common sense. You have to wrap it up in a candy coating of Fuckwitese or else they'll reject it like a child spitting out his medicine.
I've become increasingly convinced the problem isn't that there simply aren't enough smart people in the world. There are too many leadership positions relative to the number of intelligent people that are willing to work in business, so it's simply inevitable that low grade retards are going to get in, the kind of people that really need stuff like "if something isn't working, you should find out why and fix it" explained to them.
The buzz words in business are just the inevitable result of the inadequate people needing intelligent sounding things to say without all that effort of actually thinking and their love of shiny distractions.
I think it's more that most intelligent people are pretty acutely aware of the responsibilities of any sort of leadership position and just don't want it. I know I try to avoid leadership positions around uni (although this is largely because in my case I end up with a group who won't question my ideas enough, which I consider sort of a vital part of not making obvious mistakes).
I know what you're saying exactly.
Its a bit of a stretch because its a government position, but none of the Public defenders working at my moms office want to be supervisor, because they would rather stay under union protection then be forced to handle responsibility alone, and they're some of the smartest people I know.
(Ironically enough, the only businessman in my family started by himself, which might say where the business brains are going.)
Pretty much any management fad is ass if used wrong. That's why Six Sigma is so overused and often yields shitty results. That said, since I'm one of those management assholes, I have a lot of experience in management stupidity. I see it all around me all the time. My manager is great, but her boss, and her peers are nothing to write home about. About half of the managers who work for me got their jobs because they did their previous role well, but they can't manage worth a shit. A lot of these fads are tossed around way too often for their own good.
That said, I offer up:
Good
Six Sigma
Lean
360 Degree Feedback (if done formally)
I agree that the corporate world has a lot of useless jargon and common sense wrapped up in shiny language, but it's not because business people are idiots.
You gotta understand that when the upper management comes up with a new policy, they have to make it so that it can be understood by the lowest denominator. It's not a pitiful attempt at self-importance like you guys are suggesting; it's just making sure everyone is on the same page.
Besides that, I don't really understand the anti-business bandwagon going on in this thread.
ege02 on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
How does obfuscation through the overuse of jargon and the torture of the english language (leverage is not a verb. NOT A VERB.) yield greater understanding for the common denominator?
How does obfuscation through the overuse of jargon and the torture of the english language (leverage is not a verb. NOT A VERB.) yield greater understanding for the common denominator?
Because the words aren't actually jargon when used within the context of manufacturing.
Let's look at what Wikipedia says about Six Sigma.
Basic methodology consists of the following five steps:
* Define the goals of the design activity that are consistent with customer demands and enterprise strategy.
* Measure and identify CTQs (critical to qualities), product capabilities, production process capability, and risk assessments.
* Analyze to develop and design alternatives, create high-level design and evaluate design capability to select the best design.
* Design details, optimize the design, and plan for design verification. This phase may require simulations.
* Verify the design, set up pilot runs, implement production process and handover to process owners.
Some people have used DMAICR (Realize). Others contend that focusing on the financial gains realized through Six Sigma is counter-productive and that said financial gains are simply byproducts of a good process improvement.
The underlying idea may be summarized as "common sense", but the steps are actually fairly complicated. The wording that is used, however, is simple enough (i.e. not jargon) so everyone regardless of IQ can understand it.
Besides that, I don't really understand the anti-business bandwagon going on in this thread.
Its not so much business itself, but the people running it. This thread really does lend the impression that they must be dolts for needing a 6-step mantra taught via half-day seminar for $200pp before they clue in on how to find problems and fix them. That's just ridiculous, and it leaves me both bewildered that businesses don't go bust more often and angry, because I now realise why service levels are so incredibly shithouse in most cases. Its because major companies appear to be run by simpletons.
Oh, and you know what else I hate? Use of bullshit pseudo-psych in evaluating potential employees. Stop asking me trick fucking questions about how I handle everyday situations, stop giving me stupid unvalidated personality tests that you pinched off of okcupid, and no, you don't need to know what my favourite fucking colour is. I'm going to be doing data entry. The fact that I have all my fingers and both eyes and managed to dress myself this morning should be enough!
The personality tests basically prefer someone who would go out to party over someone who'd rather read a book.
I'm screwed if those aren't out of style by the time I'm in a full time job.
Picardathon on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
Do you not think that might be because you guys, in general, are oversimplifying what you've read from the intro of a Wiki article?
The terminology is definitely idiotic--I never had to get deep enough into Six Sigma to actually refer to my fellow members as 'black belts' or 'champions' or whatever--and it is definitely being used more than it should be. But this applies to a lot of facets of business, and the simple fact of it is that you can say 'common sense', but when you work as part of an organization that's above a certain size, 'common sense' is not a replacement for a process that is defined, continually monitored, and considered to be the law. Employees are not always able to enact common sense. When 'common sense' is enforced through things like Lean and Six Sigma, though, there is a way to make it mandatory.
(Jesus Christ, people. Don't make me agree with ege.)
EDIT/ADDENDUM:
I will maintain, as a software engineer, that over-implemented CMMI is far worse than Lean or Six Sigma would ever be. But the real offenders are the various methods of XP (Scrum especially) programming. XP, especially strictly scheduled XP like Scrum, only works when you have godly programmers who a) can actually meet the unreasonable goals being set and b) don't mind having to rewrite stuff over and over again.
The personality tests basically prefer someone who would go out to party over someone who'd rather read a book.
I'm screwed if those aren't out of style by the time I'm in a full time job.
Which is incredibly ironic when you think about it (seriously, I don't doubt you).
I pretty much stopped filling in those university course evaluations because I realized they were doing the same thing and I couldn't be assed trying to decode it to say what I wanted (hoped) it would end up saying.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited July 2007
At the company I work at, every single employee is expected to do a Six Sigma project within a few months of walking in the door. That's right - within a month of being hired, you are expected to materially contribute to process improvement, including drawing up a formalized estimate of cost savings and indexes into meeting corporate goals.
It's fucking retarded.
So of course nearly everyone's project is something like a new system for issuing parking passes or some meaningless shit. The only thing I've actually seen come out of a 6S project that actually affects my day-to-day life is this:
Instead of "lunch meetings" where you get paid, we have "lunch meetings" where they don't pay you but give you an $8 lunch chit.
Awesome.
Irond Will on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
I assume the savings is not having to go scrape up petty cash.
I assume the savings is not having to go scrape up petty cash.
The savings is that all employees who attend the "not mandatory but yeah actually mandatory" lunch meetings aren't getting paid to attend. Instead they get a lunch chit, and work an extra hour in the evenings.
Irond Will on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
Meh.
The worst I have to worry about in my position is CMMI. If someone actually suggested we apply Lean or 6S to our day-to-day stuff, they would probably get kicked in the face--CMMI is hard enough to implement. Fortunately, we actually read the fine print which allows you to not implement the full CMMI if the project does not warrant it.
Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
3DS: 2406-5451-5770
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited July 2007
Oh yes we're simultaneously "integrating Six Sigma into our organizational DNA" as well as "attaining level five CMMI in all our business divisions". I was stuck writing a post-de-facto L5 CMMI Systems Engineering Management Plan last year and very nearly just walked out of my job. It was horrendous.
Irond Will on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
Dear God.
(Though the fact that they are seriously trying for CMMI 5 implies that you work at a company that is capable of doing so, and thus might actually have a need for 6S practices to improve your level 4/5 stuff...)
What is CMMI?
Is it as simple to understand as Six Sigma?
Picardathon on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited July 2007
I'd say it's simpler and easier to implement for a small company, as long as you don't go too far with it.
CMMI is Capability Maturity Model (Integrated). It's got five levels, and you get the first one for free, because the first level means you don't have any process for doing what you do--you just do it. Typically, this is applied to software, so level 1 is where you cowboy it up and fire-drill your way through releases. Level 2 means you've implemented approved processes that ensure that you can document and manage a single project properly, and repeat the process later. Level 3 adds organizational policies for your whole company. Level 4 involves metrics, where you can actually quantify how well you're doing/producing, and level 5 is optimization, where you continually try to improve further.
The last two levels can get kind of meta, especially level 5; this is where Six Sigma would overlap some, perhaps, if you were using both processes, because it involves dealing heavily with metrics and statistics.
Oh yes we're simultaneously "integrating Six Sigma into our organizational DNA" as well as "attaining level five CMMI in all our business divisions". I was stuck writing a post-de-facto L5 CMMI Systems Engineering Management Plan last year and very nearly just walked out of my job. It was horrendous.
Remind me to buy you a beer sometime. Because you've earned it.
Good lord. As someone whose work has mostly been for various types and forms of government bureaucracies, this thread is making the places I've worked look like beacons of clear thinking and succinct communication. That's quite an achievement.
Posts
Fair enough, but what are you fixing?
Sometimes it's not as simple as 'this machine on the assembly line screws up 10% of the bolts it's designed to handle'. Sometimes it's 'we could pump out our product 20% faster if we didn't have this limiting step in the way'. Companies will often get complacent once their manufacturing processes are in place and not actively seek out ways to improve what they think is an already capped rate of production and defect rate. It doesn't have to be that way, which is the goal of the process.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I host a podcast about movies.
Why are all management philosophies essentially a hopeless bastardization of you know, basic problem solving or scientific thought, with method validation and actual data removed?
It's all code for alleged panaceas which are the same damn thing repackaged and buzzworded.
You see, in the business world, it's not problem solvers that are in short supply. It's ego circle jerks that make sure no one catches on to the fact that everyone there is under motivated, lazy when unsupervised, and underemployed. If we didn't have a proper chain of intellectual custody over inter- and intra- business concepts, then sooner or later someone, somewhere, would notice that our workforce could be trimmed by 1/3-1/2 just by sending home the people that don't contribute a whole fuck of a lot. The Peters that only do about 20 minutes of real work. They're in the goddamn majority in most fields. When confronted with work, instead of doing that work, they make noises about process refinement and reporting paradigms so the the work will disappear and the person who gave it to them will be punished with more red tape. It's the perverse new darwinism of the cubicle, and don't ever leave it if you intend on going back, because if you do anything where everyone around you wants to work and doesn't fuck around, you'll get used to it and you'll be the weird one.
I host a podcast about movies.
It'd be one thing if this was one of their manufacturing plants, but this was their Experimental Labs, and seemed kind of silly to have a rigid process at the center of where you're supposed to be innovating.
I just got asked to design and roll-out an appraisal system in my company. We had NOTHING prior, and a management attitude resistant to any kind of change. So I designed a very simple template, that we can add to and expand once we actually adopt the practice of regular reviews.
I sat there in a meeting with the owner who spun around and said "what about '360 reviews?'. I looked at him and said "you would have to go pretty far to find another company currently as bad at this as we are. 360's are notoriously difficult. I see your point, but I think we should learn to walk before we start to run".
It just irritated me that he'd obviously not really thought it through.
/rant.
In every company I've ever worked in there has been some version of this. The idea that X task is something everyone, or every department, should do a little bit rather than that there should be a centralized responsibility for it. It is generally a disaster.
mmhmm. I'm reading that thing and thinking, "No duh guys, are you saying you weren't already doing this shit?" The process seems like it should be completely obvious to anyone who isn't a head injury victim.
I tell you what is annoying: those stupid motivator posters have escaped their corporate hellholes and taken up residence in the main stairwell of my uni library. What the fuck is that, we're not even a business! The first few times I saw them, I assumed they must be the Demotivators' work and spent several minutes looking for teh funney >_<
This kind of confirms my impression that librarians have no sense of either humor or irony.
The reason for this is usually that its these departments that ned to lead the changes to make the desired improvelemnts. A lot of people really resent an "outsider" telling them where they are going wrong.
I'm not saying its right. Its just why a lot of them struggle.
It seems as if it's just saying "use some common sense, logic and basic problem-solving, find out what's wrong and fix it", but wrapped-up in useless jargon.
At least they didn't throw "synergy" into the damn mix.
EDIT: Exactly. That's what I thought. They even throw in "design of experiments", which sounds like a term that would come out of a ninth grade science textbook.
Lesson One: Business isn't rocket science. There are some awfully stupid people that make an awful lot of money.
Just really saying thanks really, was a pretty wierd interview and could have been far worse. Don't think I'll be taking the job even if its offered though.
That scared me in places I didn't know I had.
Well, it's the corporate world. They're allergic to common sense. You have to wrap it up in a candy coating of Fuckwitese or else they'll reject it like a child spitting out his medicine.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I've become increasingly convinced the problem isn't that there simply aren't enough smart people in the world. There are too many leadership positions relative to the number of intelligent people that are willing to work in business, so it's simply inevitable that low grade retards are going to get in, the kind of people that really need stuff like "if something isn't working, you should find out why and fix it" explained to them.
The buzz words in business are just the inevitable result of the inadequate people needing intelligent sounding things to say without all that effort of actually thinking and their love of shiny distractions.
When did it stop appearing to be a really great setup?
Its a bit of a stretch because its a government position, but none of the Public defenders working at my moms office want to be supervisor, because they would rather stay under union protection then be forced to handle responsibility alone, and they're some of the smartest people I know.
(Ironically enough, the only businessman in my family started by himself, which might say where the business brains are going.)
That said, I offer up:
Good
Six Sigma
Lean
360 Degree Feedback (if done formally)
Bad
Fish
Strengths Finder
You gotta understand that when the upper management comes up with a new policy, they have to make it so that it can be understood by the lowest denominator. It's not a pitiful attempt at self-importance like you guys are suggesting; it's just making sure everyone is on the same page.
Besides that, I don't really understand the anti-business bandwagon going on in this thread.
Because the words aren't actually jargon when used within the context of manufacturing.
Let's look at what Wikipedia says about Six Sigma.
The underlying idea may be summarized as "common sense", but the steps are actually fairly complicated. The wording that is used, however, is simple enough (i.e. not jargon) so everyone regardless of IQ can understand it.
Its not so much business itself, but the people running it. This thread really does lend the impression that they must be dolts for needing a 6-step mantra taught via half-day seminar for $200pp before they clue in on how to find problems and fix them. That's just ridiculous, and it leaves me both bewildered that businesses don't go bust more often and angry, because I now realise why service levels are so incredibly shithouse in most cases. Its because major companies appear to be run by simpletons.
I'm screwed if those aren't out of style by the time I'm in a full time job.
The terminology is definitely idiotic--I never had to get deep enough into Six Sigma to actually refer to my fellow members as 'black belts' or 'champions' or whatever--and it is definitely being used more than it should be. But this applies to a lot of facets of business, and the simple fact of it is that you can say 'common sense', but when you work as part of an organization that's above a certain size, 'common sense' is not a replacement for a process that is defined, continually monitored, and considered to be the law. Employees are not always able to enact common sense. When 'common sense' is enforced through things like Lean and Six Sigma, though, there is a way to make it mandatory.
(Jesus Christ, people. Don't make me agree with ege.)
EDIT/ADDENDUM:
I will maintain, as a software engineer, that over-implemented CMMI is far worse than Lean or Six Sigma would ever be. But the real offenders are the various methods of XP (Scrum especially) programming. XP, especially strictly scheduled XP like Scrum, only works when you have godly programmers who a) can actually meet the unreasonable goals being set and b) don't mind having to rewrite stuff over and over again.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I pretty much stopped filling in those university course evaluations because I realized they were doing the same thing and I couldn't be assed trying to decode it to say what I wanted (hoped) it would end up saying.
It's fucking retarded.
So of course nearly everyone's project is something like a new system for issuing parking passes or some meaningless shit. The only thing I've actually seen come out of a 6S project that actually affects my day-to-day life is this:
Instead of "lunch meetings" where you get paid, we have "lunch meetings" where they don't pay you but give you an $8 lunch chit.
Awesome.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
I don't mind it when it's applied to manufacturing... or indeed any complicated process with quantifiable metrics of success and waste.
But making me fill out a DMAIC form for rolling out a single fileserver is idiotic.
Edit: and a gantt chart. :P
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The worst I have to worry about in my position is CMMI. If someone actually suggested we apply Lean or 6S to our day-to-day stuff, they would probably get kicked in the face--CMMI is hard enough to implement. Fortunately, we actually read the fine print which allows you to not implement the full CMMI if the project does not warrant it.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
(Though the fact that they are seriously trying for CMMI 5 implies that you work at a company that is capable of doing so, and thus might actually have a need for 6S practices to improve your level 4/5 stuff...)
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Is it as simple to understand as Six Sigma?
CMMI is Capability Maturity Model (Integrated). It's got five levels, and you get the first one for free, because the first level means you don't have any process for doing what you do--you just do it. Typically, this is applied to software, so level 1 is where you cowboy it up and fire-drill your way through releases. Level 2 means you've implemented approved processes that ensure that you can document and manage a single project properly, and repeat the process later. Level 3 adds organizational policies for your whole company. Level 4 involves metrics, where you can actually quantify how well you're doing/producing, and level 5 is optimization, where you continually try to improve further.
The last two levels can get kind of meta, especially level 5; this is where Six Sigma would overlap some, perhaps, if you were using both processes, because it involves dealing heavily with metrics and statistics.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Remind me to buy you a beer sometime. Because you've earned it.