The Six Sigma training and accreditation process provides healthy revenue for the providers and it results in a plethora of people trained to different levels, the ultimate being the black belt . Many who have gone through the training observe that most of the tools never get used; most organisational problems don't need weeks of training to solve. I am with them - the problems solved in the examples in this book illustrate the simplicity of solutions if an analysis is based on sound method. While Six Sigma has vast amounts of training in tools, there is little content on how to study work.

In a presentation of Six Sigma's application to a service centre I saw no appreciation of the importance of understanding demand. Instead the 'solution' contained the same mistakes as I described in chapter two: treating all demand as units of production and assuming the workers can be held accountable for the work they do. The 'solution' missed the greatest leverage for improvement. Instead it focussed on one of management's current pre-occupations: how to get people to do more, which in Six Sigma terms meant how to reduce variation between the workers. There was no appreciation of the system, no methods for understanding the work. Instead the solution, if successful, would hide the means for learning and improvement - the causes of variation, which are in the system

In many Six Sigma interventions the analysis of the current state is conducted by interviewing managers - something that is common to many consulting interventions . This is not the same as studying the work.

One of my consultants had the privilege of watching the start of a Six Sigma program in a client whose system he know. The initiative had been sent down by head office. It began with the training of many black belts. Three weeks of training on tools for improving performance. Then five consultants interviewed managers for four weeks (imagine the cost) about their problems and ideas for improvement. The results were brought to a decision-making forum of consultants and managers, the priorities were identified and mangers were sent forth to apply their new tools. To add to the sheer dishonesty of the intervention the consultants then established a reporting structure for projects and their progress.

So now the managers were responsible for executing what the consultants had helped them to come up with. But how had they conceptualised their problems? From their current (traditional) point of view. Six Sigma had not changed their thinking about the design and management of work. The tools would not do much for them. They needed to think about their business from a different point of view - as a system. The consultants didn't help them do that but will ensure that whatever gets done is subject to strong project management. It appeals to the command and control mind set. It is a device to 'get them to do it'.

The reporting structure associated with Six Sigma ensures positive results are reported. Some results, no doubt, are genuine. But it is not hard to find examples of reports of success that meet the requirement to report rather than reflecting the value of the intervention.

I received the following by e-mail:

"I was talking to a lady engineer yesterday who used to work for (an organisation well known for promoting Six Sigma) and still has friends there. She told me that many employees HATE Six-Sigma because:

1. It targets cost reduction exclusively and more and more cost reduction, year on year, is being demanded from all departments. If you sack a member of your staff this year the saving goes into your pot and you must therefore further increase your cost reduction next year.
2. It is elitist. Only "specialists" (black and green belts can do it).
3. These specialists run around saying: "Look at all this training I have received". Others respond with: "How much of it have you actually used?"
4. If you want to get something done, you have to call it Six Sigma.

I have never yet seen a Six Sigma intervention present a challenge to management thinking. Rather than starting with 'this means you too' Six Sigma represents an appealing bureaucracy for directing and controlling improvement efforts. Jack Welch, chief executive of GE for 20 years is often quoted as a management hero and advocate of Six Sigma. This is how Will Hutton writes about him:

"Even before Welch took it [GE] over it had enjoyed years of sustained profits growth. but what Welch saw was that if GE redefined it priorities to mirror those of Wall Street it would win a star rating. GE's business aim is would move from excellence in engineering to excellence in financial engineering.. His priority was cost reduction, which he achieved by massive redundancies and allowing the R and D spend to dwindle. everything was subordinated to ensuring that profits grew smoothly quarter by quarter. Contributions to the pension fund were reduced. accounting conventions were stretched. the company stood ready to buy back it own shares to ensure they sustained a high rating, putting a total of $30 billion into stock buybacks rather than investment in the core business."

By his own admission Jack had little idea what Six Sigma was, he was attracted by the practical examples shown to him by the consultant. Jack could not grasp the statistics. He is not alone.

I gave a presentation to a senior management group in a high street bank. The quality director told me they were going to do Six Sigma. I asked him what he knew about the theory of variation. His blank look said it all.

I never cease to be amazed that managers buy things knowing nothing about them. But Six Sigma provides the things that are important to the command and control manager: focus and reporting. It has associated with it all the distortions and elegances well known to command and control systems. Which brings me to the final and most important criticism of Six Sigma: There is no requirement for management to change the way they think.

John Seddon
Vanguard Consulting
"Freedom from Command and Control", 2005