This Six Sigma metrics example will use a golf scorecard analogy in the provided two articles to illustrate the confusion and resolution with traditional Six Sigma measurements reporting.
Measurements affect behavior. Accordingly, the leaders of many respected companies are now paying the price for creating an environment in which measurements did not accurately reflect what was occurring in their organizations. They created an environment where it was common practice to play games with the numbers and make short-term numbers look good at the expense of long-term performance for stockholders and employees.
How should performance metrics be reported? Within a Six Sigma infrastructure, process capability/performance indexes such as Cp, Cpk, Pp, and Ppk are taught. We also encounter in Six Sigma metrics defects per million opportunities (DPMO) and sigma quality level. The articles and links provided below will elaborate more on these performance reporting metrics.
Six Sigma Metrics Example: Golf Scores (Download Article I)
So how well does the sigma quality level metric describe your golf game? If you were to report a one sigma quality metric to a friend, would it be clear to him how well you are doing in golf?
After one provides a Six Sigma metric report-out of their golf game to a golfing buddy, this friend might then ask the following questions about the use of Six Sigma metrics when tracking their golf scorecards:
- Do you understand how your golf game is progressing over time?
- Do you have a strategy that naturally leads you to quantify the source of variability within your golf game?
- Do you have a measurement strategy that will ask you questions on what you might do differently to improve?
The response to these inquiries is typically “no”. This same confusion and response can occur when using the Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk metrics, as described in the “Download I” article below.
Six Sigma Metrics Example: Golf Scores Confusion and Resolution (Download Article II)
In the “Download I” article, there was discussion on how someone might track and report their golfing performance using a sigma quality level metric. This article also showed problems with this metric and described an alternative. Discussed also was the process capability/performance indices Cp, Cpk, Pp, and Ppk.
The “Download II” article below will elaborate more on these indices and how the results from these metrics can also deceive.
Six Sigma Metrics: Confusion and Resolution
For additional articles about Six Sigma metrics confusion and resolution, CLICK HERE
Six Sigma Metrics Alternative: 30,000-foot-level Predictive Performance Reporting
Organizations benefit when they have a predictive performance measurement system, which is not unlike driving an automobile by looking out the windshield of the vehicle as opposed to driving by only viewing the rear view mirror; i.e., not unlike traditional Six Sigma metrics.
If our performance reporting expectations are not what we want to later experience (i.e., from this 30,000-foot-level predictive performance metric reporting) something differently needs to be done; i.e., not unlike turning the steering wheel or applying the brakes in a vehicle when looking out its windshield.
30,000-foot-level Predictive Performance Reporting in a Business Management System
The Integrated Enterprise Excellence (IEE) Business Management provides a means for linking 30,000-foot-level predictive metrics with the processes that created them. An IEE system can also provide insight to where process enhancements should focus so that the big picture benefits.
Contact Us to set up a time to discuss with Forrest Breyfogle how your organization might gain much from an Integrated Enterprise Excellence (IEE) Business Process Management System and its 30,000-foot-level reporting methodology.
Download I Download II