This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 15 November 2014, At: 16:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Total Quality ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm19

Widening the Six Sigma concept:An approach to improveorganizational learningHåkan Wiklund & Pia Sandvik WiklundPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Håkan Wiklund & Pia Sandvik Wiklund (2002) Widening theSix Sigma concept: An approach to improve organizational learning, Total QualityManagement, 13:2, 233-239, DOI: 10.1080/09544120120102469

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544120120102469

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT, VOL. 13, NO. 2, 2002, 233- 239

Widening the Six Sigma concept: An

approach to improve organizational learning

HaÊ kan Wiklund1 & Pia Sandvik Wiklund2

1Mid Sweden University, S-831 25 OÈ stersund, Sweden and LuleaÊ University of Technology, S-971

87 LuleaÊ , Sweden & 2Mid Sweden University, S-831 25 OÈ stersund, Sweden (also former Director

of Quality at Solectron Sweden AB)

abstract Six Sigma has been established as an approach to improving organizational performance,

and many manufacturing companies have reported on their successive work with Six Sigma

programmes. Often, the focus of Six Sigma is put on only reducing defects and improving

process capability. This paper discusses Six Sigma as a company-wide approach for organizational

improvement incorporating organizational learning. Six Sigma programmes have been studied and

the fundamental principles of organizational learning have been applied in order to improve the long-

term implementation of the programmes. The paper also discusses factors associated with manu-

facturing work organization and leadership that are essential for improving organizational learning

and for stimulating the competence development and motivation among personnel.

Introduction

In recent years, an increasing number of manufacturing organizations have used diþ erenttypes of quality programmes in order to improve internal and external customer satisfaction.By focusing on the performance measures, the companies have received knowledge of theprocesses. If the knowledge is used properly improved goods and services and lower costs ofrejection will be attained. Process improvement has often been accomplished through anintegrated approach, using problem-solving techniques such as total quality management(TQM) tools and classic statistical analysis (Wiklund & Sandvik Wiklund, 1999a, b). Aspectsrelated to the knowledge transformation where important approaches such as training andpractice in the personal working situation have been discussed frequently (Wiklund &Sandvik Wiklund, 1999a). Another aspect is how the company should change and act whendisseminating methods and support quality improvement, where the structure of the company,strategies and education performance and content are considered essential factors for asuccessful implementation. An interesting question is how an improvement programmeshould be designed to support changed attitudes and result in changed behaviour andlearning, which is a central necessity, among others, in such an implementation process.

Correspondence: H. Wiklund, Mid Sweden University, S-831 25 OÈ stersund, Sweden and LuleaÊ University ofTechnology, S-971 87 LuleaÊ , Sweden. Tel: +46 63 165985; Fax +46 63 16 55 00, E-mail: Hakan.Wiklund@ter.mh.se

ISSN 0954-4127 print/ISSN 1360-0613 online/02/020233-07 © 2002 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/09544120120102469

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

234 H. WIKLUND & P. SANDVIK WIKLUND

Six Sigma as an improvement programme has received considerable attention in theliterature during the last few years (e.g. Bergman & Kroslid, 2000; Breyfogle, 1999; Harry,1994, 1998; Hellsten & KlefsjoÈ , 2000, Hoerl, 1998; KlefsjoÈ et al., 2001). Motorola launchedSix Sigma in 1987 and was also the ® rst to win the Malcolm Baldrige National QualityAward (MBNQA) in 1988. Today, companies like Motorola, Texas Instruments, ABB, AlliedSignal, General Electric (GE) and 3M have been striving to achieve Six Sigma quality, andas a result they have become known internationally as best-in-class companies (e.g. Fuller,2000; Sanders & Hild, 2000).

Although many success stories have been reported in the literature, the ultimate objectiveis to understand Six Sigma and place it in an appropriate context to reap the bene® ts. Well-known statistician and quality consultant Ron Snee (2000) has indicated that `̀ Six Sigmashould be a strategic approach that works across all processes, products, company functionsand industries’ ’ and Bajaria (1999, 2000) reinforces this idea as a `nuts and bolts’ point-counterpoint discussion of each of 14 key Six Sigma ideas. In these papers by Bajaria anexamination is made of the heads and tails of the Six Sigma concept and some warnings arealso given against limitations and misuses.

The technical aim of Six Sigma is to keep the distance between the process averageand the nearest tolerance limit to at least six standard deviations and thus reduce variabilityin products and processes in order to prevent defects. The original motivation for SixSigma at Motorola was centred on manufacturing improvement, and this was also how SixSigma was introduced in many other organizations. To meet this aim, Six Sigma methodshave been based heavily on the use of statistical methods to understand product andprocess performance. During the last few years, however, the central theme has begun tobroaden from focusing principally on the manufacturing ® eld to encompassing all businessoperations, especially those that aþ ect the customer (Hahn et al., 2000). Still, the focus ofSix Sigma is of a rather technical nature and there is a need to discuss Six Sigma in aneven broader organizational perspective. For example, the understanding of variation hasbeen pointed out as an important aspect in the implementation of Six Sigma (Bergman &Kroslid, 2000).

Six Sigma has also been discussed as a metaphor for excellence and managerial thoughts,rather than a purely statistical concept (Yilmaz & Chatterjee, 2000). In their paper, SixSigma quality thinking is discussed as a means for what they call `robust management’ ; onethat is able to confront the challenges of a highly competitive and variable environment. Thisargument suggests the necessity of a systems view of an organization beyond its individualdepartments or processes, and the true appreciation of inherent variability in the system.

The content in the Six Sigma concept still varies between companies and betweenauthors. Despite the many reported success stories concerning Six Sigma programmes, thereare some central implementation aspects that need to be discussed. The question is how toget more peopleÐ not just Black Belts and other formalized problem-solversÐ to overcomemental barriers and to use statistical methods in their daily work.

In this paper, Six Sigma is discussed as an approach for organizational improvementwhere aspects related to method dissemination and organizational learning are highlighted.The traditional roles of formal quality experts, such as Black Belts, Master Black Belts,Champions, etc. are discussed. The reason is that an exclusive use of these types of `qualityexperts’ can tend to focus more on organizational learning disciplines such as `personalmastery’ rather than on t̀eam learning’ and on `systems view’ (Senge, 1990).

A part of the ® eldwork was conducted at Solectron Sweden AB in OÈ stersund (formerEricsson Network Core Products AB). The Solectron Corporation received the MBNQA in1991 and 1997.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WIDENING THE SIXTH SIGMA CONCEPT 235

Figure 1. Three important components in Six Sigma.

Six Sigma as a concept for organizational improvement

Six Sigma has been established as an improvement approach that seeks to ® nd and eliminatecauses of mistakes or defects in a business process by focusing on outputs that are of criticalimportance to customers. As a result, process performance should be enhanced, customersatisfaction should be improved and the bottom line should be impacted through cost savingsand increased revenue. According to Snee (2000), Six Sigma should be a strategic approachthat works across all processes, products, company functions and industries. The importantcomponents of Six Sigma are presented in Fig. 1. This approach consists of several methods,all well known in the quality ® eld, for example hypothesis tests, design of experiments, qualityfunction deployment, regression analysis, statistical process control, etc.

Some of the central features that should characterize a successive Six Sigma processhave been described by Hahn et al. (2000) as:

· It is a top-down, rather than a bottom-up, approach; see, e.g. Allied Signal and GE.Champions are appointed from the ranks of the leaders in each business. They areresponsible for ensuring the successful implementation of Six Sigma in their own areasof in¯ uence.

· Both at the business and project level, Six Sigma leadership is, traditionally, theresponsibility of Master Black Belts and Black Belts. These are full-time responsibilitiesand include the setting of quality objectives for the business and monitoring progresstowards these objectives, selection of Six Sigma projects, and mentoring and projectteams. Implementation is the responsibility of the project team members. They receiveGreen Belt training from the Master Black Belts or the Black Belts.

· It is a highly disciplined approach that typically involves the four stages, measure,analyse, improve and control, with an up-front stage (de® ne) sometimes added(DMAIC), see Fig. 2.

· It is a highly data-oriented approach. As a consequence, implementation of theDMAIC concepts is heavily based on statistical tools and the statistical design ofexperiments (DoE).

· It involves training everyone in the company in DMAIC, or modi® ed conceptsand tools.

Six Sigma represents a systematic approach when reducing defects that aþ ect what is importantto the customer and positively impact the bottom line. The programme includes qualitative,statistical and instructional devices for observing process variables and their relationships as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

236 H. WIKLUND & P. SANDVIK WIKLUND

Figure 2. The diþ erent phases in the DMAIC model.

well as managing their character. In fact, by introducing Six Sigma programmes, manycompanies have experienced (see Wiklund & Sandvik Wiklund, 2000):

· cost savings;· improved customer satisfaction;· lower frequency of defects;· eý cient sharing of best practices;· shorter cycle times;· increased productivity;· improved supplier participation;· a common language and metrics for quality.

Roles of Black Belts and Master Black Belts

Quality engineers and statisticians play a major role in the deployment of the Six Sigmaphilosophy. In their role as Black Belts they should provide leadership for the teams workingon the projects as well as doing a portion of the project work. Some of the more experiencedprofessionals should serve as Master Black Belts and provide guidance to Black Belts as wellas Champions. These professionals should also be called on to be members of Black Belt-ledteams and provide the expertise needed to complete the project successfully.

Black Belts usually work full time with the Six Sigma programme. At, for example,Solectron, they receive a 4-month special education in quality engineering and industrialstatistics. They are also responsible for the Green Belt education, which is focused onstatistical tools and on other problem-solving tools and is oþ ered to several categories ofemployees. A person with a Master Black Belt is also responsible of co-ordinating andsupervising the Black Belts.

Aspects on organizational learning

Without organizational learning there can be no continuous improvement. One of the mostimportant stages in the quality planning process is the implementation stage, and so also inSix Sigma. Education, training and participation are factors that are critical in such a process(e.g. James, 1996). Everyone’s commitment to the Six Sigma programme should be thenatural driving force for managers at all company levels. As pointed out in Senge et al.(1994), however, neither training nor team training will be successful unless reinforced bythe regular follow-up of an ongoing, systematic change in how work is conducted. Sandvik

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WIDENING THE SIXTH SIGMA CONCEPT 237

Figure 3. The organizational learning cycle (left) by Dixon (1994) and the plan-do-study-act cycle by Deming

(1993).

Wiklund and Karlsson (1997) also discuss this, and they state that lack of quality learningcauses insuý cient implementation of quality methods. They de® ne quality learning as thelearning necessary for a permanent change in the way of working that is adequate for qualityachievements, including both knowledge and ideology.

In the literature, it has been argued that learning teams need practice ® elds, ways topractise together so they can develop their collective learning skills (Henry et al., 1995; Senge,1990). When considering organizational learning, the experiential learning model proposedby Dixon (1994) can be used, see Fig. 3. The continuous ¯ ow of cross-functional informationand knowledge is an important driving force that supports the plan-do-study-act (PDSA)cycle (Deming, 1993) and the work with improving the organizational learning.

This is generally how the information is integrated and collectively interpreted in thecompany. Thereafter, necessary actions should be taken to ful® l the needs identi® ed in theinterpretation stage. Here, information networks can be a method to transport informationand knowledge throughout the company, as considered by Mayo and Lank (1995).

Process consultation (see Argyris, 1970) is the primary strategy of organizationaldevelopment. The most important qualities of a process consultant are described in Porrasand Silvers (1991) through four main sets of characteristics: interpersonal competence,theory-based problem-solving capabilities, the ability to create learning experiences and theawareness of one’s own assumptions and models. While an expert consultant is highlycompetent in the current subject area and is the problem-solver, in process consultancy incontrast to expert consultancy, it is the client him/herself who makes the decisions. Hence,necessary conditions for learning in accordance to Kolb’s learning cycle are created (Kolb,1976).

Except for the statistics, this viewpoint has much in common with W. Edwards Deming’s`Profound Knowledge’ , which is composed of the four interrelated parts: appreciation for asystem, knowledge about variation, theory of knowledge and psychology. Profound Know-ledge has been known as a system of knowledge of importance for the understanding of theapplication of a new economic system (Deming, 1993).

Introducing Soft Sigma in the Six Sigma programme

In this paper Soft Sigma is regarded as a complement to DMAIC and the statistical methodsand includes all aspects that deal with learning and implementation of Six Sigma, i.e.knowledge in behaviour science. The overall goal of introducing Soft Sigma is to improve theoutcome of a Six Sigma programme by increasing organizational learning. This is achievedby having Black Belts and Master Black Belts that have more of Deming’s Profound

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

238 H. WIKLUND & P. SANDVIK WIKLUND

Knowledge, thus theory of knowledge and psychology. Their roles as internal consultantsand facilitators have to be very clear and understandable.

The relationship between organizational learning and how these types of quality expertsact in the projects is clear. They can act as either expert consultants or as process consultants.Depending on their role in the projects, they can either focus on the process improvementitself or on the implementation of methods needed for continuous improvement.

The expert consultants act as problem-owners and problem-solvers. Focus is on theprocess problem and the employees are not usually involved in the problem-solving parts.Expert consultants are often looked upon as authorities in their role as quality experts. Theygenerally work alone and reach good results on a short-term basis, and the big organizationallong-term savings seldom appear, as the organizational learning is very limited.

The process consultants act as facilitators and support the implementation of Six Sigmamethods. They focus on the employees and their training and active problem-solving tosupport the improvement work. The aim is to create long-term opportunities for implementingSix Sigma methods and Profound Knowledge among personnel and thereby support indi-vidual and organizational learning. See also parallels to Senge’s `team learning’ (Senge, 1990).

The strategy of introducing Soft Sigma at Solectron Sweden AB, OÈ stersund, consists ofsome important elements. First, the Black Belt training should cover themes such asleadership, change management, learning aspects and supervision together with parts thatincrease self-knowledge. Second, the infrastructure should include expertise not only instatistics and ® nance, but also in behaviour science. The infrastructure at Solectron, OÈ ster-sund, has one part-time ® nance person, one part-time statistician and one full-time SoftSigma person (behaviour scientist). The ® nance person should facilitate the follow-up ofsavings, and the statistician should supervise the Black Belts and Master Black Belts instatistics and quality engineering. Finally, the Soft Sigma person should help the Black Beltsand Master Black Belts to develop and understand their roles as internal consultants andfacilitators. As mentioned earlier, the ambition is to get them to act as process consultants.The full-time resources for this indicate how important Solectron regards this role to be. Theinfrastructure of Solectron, OÈ stersund, is presented in Fig. 4.

Figure 4. The Six Sigma infrastructure at Solectron, OÈ stersund.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WIDENING THE SIXTH SIGMA CONCEPT 239

Concluding remarks

Six Sigma is a very powerful programme for improving organizational performance. There ismuch evidence of the success of the programme. This paper has presented how Six Sigmacan be extended to gain even more. The approach presented has been implemented atSolectron in OÈ stersund and has shown very good results in terms of improved organizationallearning and thus fast and eý cient implementation of Six Sigma. Today, not only the BlackBelts connected to the Six Sigma centre but also employees on the shop-¯ oor use DMAICand the incorporated statistical methods.

References

Argyris, C. (1970) Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioural Science View (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley).

Bajaria, H.J. (1999) Six Sigma quality: beyond hype, paper available at www.multiface.comBajaria, H.J. (2000). Six Sigma quality: points and counterpoints, Quality Australia, 15, pp. 15- 17.Bergman, B. & Kroslid, D. (2000) Six SigmaÐ a revival of the Profound Knowledge of variation, Proceedings

of the 3rd International Conference on Building People and Organizational Excellence (Aarhus, Denmark),pp. 260- 266.

Breyfogle, F.W. (1999) Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions using Statistical Methods (New York, JohnWiley).

Deming, W.E. (1993) The New Economics, for Industry, Government, Education (Cambridge, MA, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology).

Dixon, N. (1994) The Organizational Learning Cycle (Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill).Fuller, H.T. (2000) Observations about the success and evaluation of Six Sigma at Seagate, Quality

Engineering , 12, pp. 311- 315.Hahn, G.J., Doganaksoy, N. & Hoerl, R. (2000) The evolution of Six Sigma, Quality Engineering, 12,

pp. 317- 326.Harry, M.J. (1994) The Vision of Six Sigma, Roadmap for a Breakthrough (Phoenix, AZ, Sigma).Harry, M.J. (1998) Six Sigma: a breakthrough strategy for pro® tability, Quality Progress, May, pp. 60- 64.Hellsten, U. & KlefsjoÈ , B. (2000) TQM as a management system consisting of values, techniques and tools,

The TQM Magazine, 12, pp. 238- 244.Henry, C., Arthur, M.B. & Jones, A.M. (1995) Strategy through PeopleÐ Adaption and Learning in the Small-

Medium Sized Enterprise (London, Routledge).Hoerl, R.W. (1998) Six Sigma and the future of the quality profession, Quality Progress, June, pp. 35- 42.James, P. (1996) Total Quality Management (London, Prentice Hall).KlefsjoÈ , B., Wiklund, H. & Edgeman, R. (2001) Six Sigma seen as a methodology for total quality

management, Measuring Business Excellence, 5, pp. 31-35.Kolb, D.A. (1976) Management and the learning process, California Management Review, 18, pp. 21- 31.Mayo, A. & Lank, E. (1995) The Power of Learning (MalmoÈ , Liber-Hermods).Porras, J.I. & Silvers, R.C. (1991) Organization development and transformation, Annual Revue of Psychology,

42, pp. 51-78.Sanders, D. & Hild, C. (2000) A discussion of strategies for Six Sigma implementation, Quality Engineering,

12, pp. 303-309.Sandvik Wiklund, P. & Karlsson, S. (1997) Critical aspects on quality method implementation, Total Quality

Management, 8, pp. 55-66.Senge,P.M. (1990) The Fifth DisciplineÐ TheArtand Practice of the Learning Organization (New York,Doubleday).Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B., Smith, B.J. & Kleiner, A. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook (London,

Nicholas Brealey).Snee, R.D. (2000) Impact of Six Sigma on quality engineering, Quality Engineering, 12, pp. ix- xiv.Wiklund, H. & Sandvik Wiklund, P. (1999a) A collaboration concept for TQM implementation in small

and medium sized enterprises, International Journal of Applied Quality Management, 2, pp. 101- 115.Wiklund, H. & Sandvik Wiklund, P. (1999b) Student focused design and improvement of university courses,

Managing Service Quality, 9, pp. 434- 443.Wiklund, H. & Sandvik Wiklund, P (2000) Learning and service quality improvement in a manufacturing

organization. In: B. Edvardsson, S.W. Brown, R. Johnston & E.E Scheuing (Eds) Service Quality inthe New Economy: Interdisciplinary and International Dimensions (New York, International Service QualityAssociation Inc.), pp. 118-124.

Yilmaz, M.R. & Chatterjee, S. (2000) Six Sigma beyond manufacturingÐ a concept for robust management,Quality Management Journal, 7, pp. 67- 78.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:07

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14