Talk:Six Sigma/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive
Archives
  1. January 2004 – August 2005
  2. June 2006

Another external link

Jobs program for management consultants. I think the article The Six Sigma Revolution should be added to the external links. It provides a good overview of Six Sigma from a well known author. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TucsonTom (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like an opportunity for Pyzdek Consulting to advertise. Before adding your company's link, please read WP:Spam#External_link_spamming and WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I notice that the proprietor of Pyzdek's first name is Tom and the company is located in Tuscon. Coincidentally your user name is User:TucsonTom. Any relation? --DanielPenfield 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Six Sigma is not trademarked

The article stats

Six Sigma is a registered service mark and trademark of Motorola, Inc[1]...

This is not correct. I personally spoke with Motorola and learned that they have trademarked only their stylized Six Sigma logo. The words "Six Sigma" are not trademarked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TucsonTom (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

6Sigma101

We added this site several times and it has been removed. I would like to put forward a case for its inclusion:

The site contains a very comprehensive glossary that includes an extensive discussion of about 300 terms and methods associated with Six Sigma:

http://www.6sigma101.com/glossary/index.htm

These include all the statistically based terms in the American Society for Quality Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Body of Knowledge.

If you look at the site, and I hope you do, you will see that it includes illustrations, formulae and worked examples. The glossary concentrates on the statistical terms, and is most detailed on those that are hardest to find in general books on statistics and quality assurance.

The site also includes a Flash-Based calculater that converts sigma level to PPM, it includes statistical tables that contain the various factors and values often used in Six Sigma. It also includes books and non-commercial links (the site does not accept paid advertising).

I have to compare this to the existing links on the Wikipedia Six Sigma entry:

- General Electric is a commercial organization. The link is to a one page, very promotional general brief on Six Sigma.

- Motorola University is a commercial training organization. The site is devoted purely to advertising its courses. It includes minimal information on Six Sigma

- Tregna is an informative site. However it contains paid advertising.

- Discover 6 Sigma looks to be non-commercial and useful

- isixsigma is a very useful resource, but it is a portal with extensive commercial advertizing. The glossary is far less comprehensive and detailed than 6sigma101.com in the statistical methods area.

I would ask you to spend a few minutes on the www.6sigma101.com site before commenting. Go through the various sections, not just the home page. If you are interested in Six Sigma I believe you will agree that it is relevant and useful, particularly for anybody who wants to go beyond the basics.

I welcome input from all contributors to this discussion.

Glen Netherwood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glen netherwood (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of this link. GE and Motorola are linked because they were forerunners. The other three are good resources, two of which have advertising. There's a difference between that and actually being a commercial organization that does Six Sigma training. Having a glossary and a few other useful tools is nice, but it's ultimately part of an effort to sell training materials. On the other hand, isixsigma, though full of ads, is simply a Six Sigma resource. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 11:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing against Michael Cyger, he is doing an incredible job, but you may be missing the existance of the iSixSigma Magazine that is where the profits from iSixSigma are. It is advertized everywhere, just look at the site again. Again, nothing against Michael, just your argument is flawed and biased towards GE and Motorola. Just look at the advertizing mileage they both get from the Wikipedia.
Maybe it would be a good idea for the contributors to this discussion to disclose their affiliations.

(Goskan 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC))

Sure; I'm an industrial engineering student with no affiliations to any six sigma organizations. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
So what gives you the right to decide on Six Sigma resources if you are not an expert in this area? Have you looked at our glossary at all? What do you base your opinion on? Have you evaluated other glossaries and compared them with 6sigma101 glossary? I am concerned here about jumping into conclusions. Have you looked at Motorola Category with entries like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected_Home_Solutions
Is that really more suitable for Wikipedia than a link to: http://www.6sigma101.com/glossary/topics.htm
Please visit the site and let us know why you consider it less relevant and useful than the above Motorola entry. (Goskan 12:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC))
If we want to use the "expert" argument, "what gives you the right to decide" which links should be added to Wikipedia? I've been contributing here for nearly 2 years and have participated in extensive debates over external links in the past. However, that argument is flawed because it's ad hominem. Also, just because I don't have affiliations doesn't mean I don't have experience. I have a better understanding of statistics than what is provided in a typical six sigma course, and am currently crunching numbers and assisting with several green belt projects as part of my summer employment. I agree that the glossary is well done, but let's compare apples with apples. Wikipedia has tons of pathetic articles, but that's not the point. The point is to compare external links. Motorola university has two things going for it--it is from one of the first companies to implement Six Sigma (enough reason to include it) and it provides some basic resources (a small dictionary, and some short lessons). 6sigma101 has a great glossary, but it's rare to link directly to a subpage. The site itself doesn't deserve a link (because it's one of many companies selling 6σ training). As for isixsigma, I get the impression that the magazine is a supplement to the site, not the primary focus. With 6sigma101, I get the impression that the glossary is a supplement to the site, not the primary focus. My opposition stands, but let's see if anyone else cares to opine. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia has clear procedures that cover the addition of links and spamming, and commercial sites. I believe that objections on those grounds should relate to those clear procedures, and not be the opinion of individuals. Otherwise it is not a fair system.

The procedure on links refers to sites that 'contain an objectionable amount of advertising'. The site in question does not, there is no advertising on the linked page and only one link from that page to 'courses'. It also refers to sites where there is 'payment to view' the relevant resources. You do not have to pay to view the material.

There is nothing in the procedures that prohibits commercial sites or links being included. I have to say I think it would be better if all links were banned, and hope that will become the case some day. In the meantine I would like a level playing field where everybody plays by the same rules.

If you can point to any way in which the proposed link conflicts with Wikipedia procedures, please let me know so we can discuss it.

(Glen Netherwood 12:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC))

Number 4, WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, "primarily exist to sell products or services". --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 13:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The passage you refer to is in the section "Links normally to be avoided" and below the heading it says "Except where noted the below do NOT override the list of what should be linked to". The list of "What should be linked to" includes "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article". I believe the link is clearly in the spirit of section 5 of "What should be linked to" and therefore should stand.

If you look through 6sigma101 and consider the amount of work involved in creating it then you will understand that there is no way it could be justified as a marketing activity. It is a free resource to the six sigma comunity, with some peripheral spinoff benefits to our separate commercial site. My mission in life is to educate people on the benefits of applying statistical methods to process improvement, and the 6sigma101 site supports that mission. I would be very surprised if anybody who saw the link on this page went on to do one of our courses; there might be some small advantage in increasing the amount of traffic but it is fairly marginal.

Note that there is no direct marketing on the 6sigma101 site, and it is a different site to our training course site. It does have a link to our separate commercial site, but there are no advertisements in the site at all.

In any case doesn't the isixsigma site primarily exist to sell products or services. The procedure does not distinguish between promoting your own products and those of others; or to put it another way isixsigma primarily exists to sell its advertising service. I don't see how you can argue for one and against the other.

(Glen Netherwood 13:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC))

Commercial links

  • Discover 6 Sigma is a personal website that appears intended to promote Sanjaya Kumar Saxena.
  • Six Sigma 101 appears to be operated by and intended to promote MiC Quality and consultant Glen Netherwood
  • TreQna is just a web forum; no internal review, no assurance of reliability, and has conspicuous advertising
  • i Six Sigma, as I write this, sports three animated banner ads at the top, five at the right side, eleven at the bottom, and one in the middle of content that consists only of links... and for all I know those links are paid ads, too.

Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This was thoroughly discussed previously, so let's leave the previous consensus as is until we reach a new consensus. I'll respond shortly. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
And Motorola University is NOT a commercial site? What do you see when you follow the link? (Goskan 22:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC))
A blatantly commercial site. You're right. It should go, too. As developer of the methodology, I assumed the link was to something less promotional. My mistake. Perhaps there's something better at that site? But Six Sigma Articles also has a regrettably low signal-to-noise ratio. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been removing the 6sigma101 link because it is being gratuitously spammed, but have made no comment yet regarding whether 6sigma101 should be added to the article or not. At this point though I must weight in. It appears to me that we have one editor (or a husband/wife team) here using sockpuppets or meatpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia by repeatedly adding the link, adding inappropriate hidden comments to the articles regarding the link, removing portions of talk pages he/she disagrees with. This behavior alone would likely be enough to keep this link off the articles. However it has been revealed above that the site seems to be primarily to promote, guess who, Glen Netherwood. The link additions have violated nearly every criteria of "how not to be a spammer" in WP:SPAM. I recommend against adding this link to any article unless enough neutral third parties feel it is useful. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a "sidekick" or "sockpuppet" is highly offensive and sexist. Could someone eblighten me what Wikipedia policy stands against this? (a simple search in Google would reveal existance of TWO people, I am also the business manager, NOT a "sidekick") There must be also a Wikipedia policy against people like AbsolutDan ("absolut" for "absolute power"?) exceeding their authority and willingly discrediting others in a public forum. (Goskan 01:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC))
I didn't invent the terms "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet"; if you would follow this link WP:SOCK you'll see they are Wikipedia-accepted terms for the editing behavior we see here. Sexist? How do you figure? And, for the record, the word "absolute" and the vodka brand "Absolut" are not the same. Please note which one is part of my username. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Assuming women having inferior positions is SEXIST. Vodka explains a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goskan (talk • contribs) 01:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I could say that assuming the Vodka has any particular influence on my editing is an attack as well. However, in the interest of keeping this from turning into a flame war, I won't worry about that. Instead, I offer my apologies for the way that my comments were interpreted. I was inferring that Mr. Netherwood began this debate, and that you came in afterwards to back him up. I can assure you that there was no assumption of inferiority of any kind. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
They should all go, except the GE link. I'm undoing my last edit because I've let myself get angry and that last edit may have violated the three-revert rule, but all of the links I mentioned above fall under the guideline Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, point #4: Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I second that. According to the rules of consensus (as I understand it being a novice to Wikipedia) that makes it 2 to 1 and only GE link should stay till any other consensus is reached.(Goskan 01:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Hi all, I am yet to go through the 101 site but how will removing the motorola link serve any purpose? Did you see how many times it is linked in the references section? Goskan, here's the guideline on consensus as seen in wikipedia.

Its good to hear fresh comments on the external link debate. Without giving my inputs to begin with, I would request the new contributors to the past discussions regarding these and other external links. Then lets continue the discussion further. -- Lost 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe how much time has been wasted on this issue. First of all, any Six Sigma website is going to be either ad supported or selling something.
Then none of them should be mentioned in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me know when you find an independent, foundation supported, non-profit organization teaching businessmen Six Sigma for free. I wouldn't waste too much time looking. If you'd like we can scrap the entire External Links section and get on with life.
Sounds like the right thing to do. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Or, we can include good, but not perfect, external links that serve our readers. ISixSigma does have alot of advertising, and I wouldn't mind removing it. It appears high on google anyway. Treqna is a good resource, it's free, and there isn't that much advertising. It's "unverified", but really so is everything else. Discover6Sigma is a good resource as well, but is a blog. I'm not too attached to it either, but I will point out that the author politely suggested that it be added here and did not repeatedly spam this article. 6Sigma101 should not be added, as a result of its own merits and the fact that its creators have spammed the article with no respect for Wikipedia guidelines on consensus. May I suggest the following links:
Talk amongst yourselves; last time I participated in a debate over the external links of this page I wasted hours and hours of my time, and I'm not going to do it again. I'm sick and tired of spammers being allowed to come in and disrupt everything. The current consensus isn't perfect, but has anyone ever heard of the law of diminishing returns? I have, and I'm not going to waste ten more hours trying to get from good to slightly better. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Do not include links to home pages whose primary purpose to promote or sell commercial Six Sigma consultation services. If there are internal deep links to articles on these sites that contain valuable, non-promotional information, they could be included. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a concept ... by removing ALL, without exception, commercial links, the discussion could revert back to the topic. Most everyone knows how to search using their favorite search engine for six sigma. This topic has now grown large enough with enough information that perhaps commercial external links are no longer required. What do you think? (Jim Winings 24 July 2006)

Final Message from 6sigma101

We made additions to Wikipedia with good intentions of providing links to good quality content (visit http://www.6sigma101.com/ for proof of that, the glossary is very comprehensive and useful for anyone involved in Six Sigma). We had NO INTENTION to do anything wrong as all links were to DIFFERENT, RELEVANT content. 6sigma101 has only FREE, accessible resources. It has NO ADVERTIZING, just menu links to our courses on http://www.micquality.com/ site (we thought that our courses could be also useful although only Introduction to Statistics module is free). In some cases 6Sigma101 glossary has much more content than Wikipedia and we were considering to move some our copyrighted content into articles in Wikipedia. However, with the relentless hunting and putting bad label on us we no longer have plans to contribute to Wikipedia. We believe that the efforts of Wikipedia spam police should be focussed on people contributing links to advertizing and sites with no free, relevant and useful content. We have tried to remove all our contributions and our accounts but, unfortunately, they were all restored against our will. However, as we have nothing to hide, and our entries have argued for the suitability of our content for Wikipedia, we will not go through the lengthy process of having them removed. We plan no longer to make any contributions. The founders and managers for MiC Quality and 6Sigma101.(Goskan 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

I am sorry to hear this. I am sure nobody intended to drive you away from here. I request you to be patient. Please allow time for consensus to build. - Lost 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Though discussion can get heated at times, we value the knowledge that every editor has, and hope that you will stay and make useful contributions to this project. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This is Sanjaya Kumar Saxena. I am removing http://www.discover6sigma.org/ as my intention is not to promote myself & I am sincere wikipedian; my objective is to serve the quality community. Just to highlight that I had even revamped the 6 sigma article to wikify it. I request the community to kindly do not add this link again. Thanks a lot! --Sanjayaksaxena

External Links

My thoughts on external links are that we should add GE & Motorala links as they are the ones who have pioneered the concept. In addition, let us add http://www.asq.org/sixsigma/ - which is ASQ's six sigma home page and contains good articles & case studies from across the world. In addition, it is a reputed, reliable & neutral source of information on the subject. Thereafter, we should strictly stop all requests to add links unless they are as good as ASQ.

Finally, wikipedia in any case provides a wonderful platform to contribute knowledge on any subject (including six sigma). We should try to create additional & useful articles of methodologies, tools & techniques which will benfit the quality community at large. Sanjayaksaxena

There is a complete silence after I expressed my thoughts on the external links. Does this silence mean that all of us in agreement with the suggestion?
In addition, a separate space has been created for commercial services & consultant links – I am afraid that soon this list will become longer than the article it self! I am sure wikipedia is not recommending these links.
Can we finalize the way forward quickly before this article once again deteriorates in quality. Sanjayaksaxena 19 July 2006
I have removed two obvious advertising links. Let us not be lenient atleast to blatant advertising -- Lost 15:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think all of the links currently in the "commercial" section are advertising and should go. But since we don't seem to be able to do that, they should at least be subject to truth-in-labelling.
Despite Motorola's involvement in the methodology, the link to [Motorola University is not an historic overview of Motorola's contributions, nor a source of much actual information on the methodology: it's a promotion for their training service.
I don't see much "meat" in the GE link, but at least it's not selling anything directly. Basically, it's promoting GE as a company.
I propose this rule: No links to dot-coms. Links to dot-orgs and dot-edus only. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I dont see harm with an external link if it is really adding value to an article and explaining something not explained within the article. But then, as the above discussions point out, where do we stop? Also, a consensus achieved today will probably be questioned again six months down the line. This external links section seems to be most discussed even in the archives. Frankly, I think let's just remove blatant advertising. I would show more tolerance towards any other link providing some knowledge not covered in the article -- Lost 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Dpbsmith - I have been trying to keep away from this discussion, Spangineer knows why, but I cant help commenting on the ridiculous idea about dot-coms not being allowed, although there is possibly no rationale in that idea I would appreciate if you let us know why you think so. Also, I think this is too much discussion for something so small, just agree on some links and put them there, remember the issue is not really what kind of site it is - commercial (the definition applied here is crappy) or non-commerical, all that is important atleast to me is that it should add value to someone who wants to study the subject. Please consider what I say. Thank you. FeralTitan 12:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder where Dpbsmith disappeared.FeralTitan 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm back, sorry... Look. This article is constantly attracting links to sites that contain virtually no real encyclopedic information about Six Sigma, but are rather sites promoting consultancies, training courses, etc. In theory I agree that there are such things as commercial sites that are high in useful information. In practice, even the Motorola site has a high promotion-to-information ratio. If Six Sigma is more than just the management fad-of-the-decade, there really ought to be plenty of material about it on non-commercial sites, and it puzzles me that there are so few links and references to research studies and so many that seem more in the nature of anecdotes and testimonials. Aren't there any really first-rate informative links? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What a waste of time. I came here looking for a discussion on the merits of six sigma and the ways to imporve this article, Instead, I find the biggest issue is if a link has a commercial bent to it or not. Stopping the tirade against commercialism! Get on with making the articles better. It seems as if you are driving off those most competent to add worthwhile information in your witch hunt for SPAMMERS. The Wikipedia rules leave plenty of room for a commercial site to be included as a link. Get over your crusade and start writing CONTENT. 05:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.243.187.101 (talk • contribs)

What merits/ demerits of six sigma are we missing out on? Why dont you add your knowledge to the article? This also goes out to anybody else with knowledge of six sigma. However, adding only an external link without content amounts to spamming. That is definitely discouraged on wikipedia. You may like to read WP:Spam in this regard -- Lost 05:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I read WP:Spam - What a waste of time! Intrepretation of what is said there could fall all over the map on the debate above. What I am trying to say is that the overbearing drumbeat to prevent a commercial site from linking to this article is driving away those most qualified to write who WORK at commercial Six Sigma providers and have content that doesn't need to be re-written - just linked to.
My point is that this debate about SPAM is discouraging those who could add something - me included. I certainly wouldn't want to write something, add a link, and get blasted and called names like a SPAMMER, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (wow - that certainly seems like an inflamatory list of names to call someone trying to add what they say is useful info) ... seems like you add here at the risk to your reputation. --65.243.187.101 06:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me clarify further. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of external links. Google is good enough if you just want to search for sites that provide information on six sigma. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Hence we encourage all relevant information to be added here and not just linked to other sites. If you think you can further add value to the article, by all means do so. Just dont make wikipedia an advertising vehicle -- Lost 08:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you intentionally missing my point??? The argument above IS about commercial sites that ADD VALUE to the article by LINKING. By my estimation they are APPROPRIATE for links (more information than the article should contain) but are being EXCLUDED because they are run by a for-profit company. They aren't trying to advertise although exposure does help any commercial business. The Wiki-Anti-Spam Editors are throwing out the BABY with the BATHWATER in their quest to rid wikipedia of any commercial taint.
PS: Many don't realize that Google is a commercial site that is supported by advertising, I DO understand that Wikipedia is not Google, I'm not trying to say the two should be the same.
PPS: I don't work at any of the above companies. (Just in case anyone was wondering...)--65.243.187.101 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, since you are trying so hard, I have a suggestion for you. Place the link to the company that you want to link, on the talk page, i.e. here and let others decide for themselves. After all, WP:Consensus is also a guideline here. If others share your views about the link adding value, they will have no problems putting your links to the article. Believe me, we are all well intentioned editors here -- Lost 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.6sigma101.com/glossary/index.htm
--65.243.187.101 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Our planet is indeed round… we are back to square one from where we started… discussion on the famous 6sigma101 link. There has been enough discussion on the same. May I once again put forward my suggestion of just having links to Motorola, GE (from histroical perspective) and ASQ (from useful & reliable source perspective) and stop all further debate on the topic. I would invite people to contibute to the article or create new ones rather than simply creating a link farm here. Sanjayaksaxena August 01, 2006
Sanjay, what makes you think that the GE and Motorola links are valuable to someone who wishes to learn about Six Sigma.FeralTitan 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I leave the GE and Motorola links simply because these companies are mentioned by name as subjects of the article. There's even less encyclopedic usefulness in portals and software sites, and way too much fighting over those. They were removed independently of me, and I'm not going to add them back just because an IP insists on reincluding them (complete with personal attacks, added one of the links 2 weeks ago, and no contribs on talk). Femto 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Femto, I see what you mean, some various IPs and you seem to be working real hard on the external links. Although I appreciate your effort, I must tell you that fellow wikipedians (I am not a very active one now) and an admin agreed on five links a long time back, then I think one link was reduced and there were four left and these were Motorola, GE, Treqna, Isixsigma. So you are in your honest effort actually undoing an agreement which took a lot of time to form. Also, there is no encyclopedic knowledge at the GE site either. And by the way, there is a note when you try to edit the external links segment which say please don't change without discussion, I think it would be nice if you took notice of that, it will make you look less vested in this whole affair, after all you are just another Wikipedian.Cheers.FeralTitan 17:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I came here through a link at Talk:Cohen's kappa from reviewing the discussion on the 6Sigma101.com spammer, few days after 5 August when the page looked like this.
If there is a clear consensus, it's not well documented. Even digging through the talk archives, I have a hard time finding out what exactly the last word was on the list of links. When in doubt, I'll assume that WP:EL isn't superseded by consensus, and err on the side of one link less instead of one link more.
Treqna and Isixsigma aside, we can agree that GM and Motorola aren't essential to the article content, and furthermore, they only attract similar pages in their commercial-ness? As was suggested before, why shouldn't we remove them all then and can call that a consensus? Femto 19:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think thats a bad idea, except for two things, 1. That is not informative for a person who needs more on Six Sigma than the page offers. 2. After 6 months when this gets archived this whole problem will just come back. To fix these to problems with our existing issue of squabbles over the external links section, I think the solution might be to let everyone add whatever websites they please, actually if I think about it there won't be more than 7-8 links and how does it matter anyway. Lastly, I actually just wanted to highlight the discussion we had earlier and so I wrote a response to your post. I think I am saturated about this link thingy and don't really want to participate in it. Have a good one. :) FeralTitan 19:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Re 1. The links could hardly be called encyclopedically "informative" resources, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is not overridden by some people having little against links, there needs to be an actual reason for them. There seems to be just as much opposition as there was support. Re 2. No offense but that would be the worst solution one can imagine. If an anything-goes-approach ever worked there would be no need for WP:EL WP:SPAM WP:WPSPAM etc. Femto 11:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the recent Honeywell link appears to be of equal relevance as GE and Motorola as side-subject of the article. Note though that my personal preference still would be to remove all these links. Femto 14:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

More criticism than definition

The article as it is written seems more of a criticism than a definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.72 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

probably written by a motorola employee :o) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.31.222 (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The "Application" section

While I appreciate that most of the subsections are cited, they seem to read like a list of corporate testimonials and not serve any real purpose in the articel. I'm wary of just ripping ½ the articel out, but don't have any ideas how to rework it. Anyone else think this way? 68.39.174.238 23:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong

To my knowledge, one of the application of the six sigma is for Operations Management

Well you are right. Six sigma can actually be used in all disciplines that entail a process -- Lost(talk) 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yah, it can be used on the toppest level of UN operation to the lowest level of toilet cleaning, right?  :-)

Test for Normality

I reckon this tool needs to be addressed extensively to include Histogram in six sigma 164.67.226.59unknown

"Unfortunately, there are no means for proving that data belong to any particular distribution. One can only assume normality, based on finding no evidence to the contrary." While technically correct, this is a bit misleading. It's very easy to prove data do not belong to a particular distribution, and the assumption of normality only makes sense under some circumstances. I suggest there be at least a sentence to elaborate, explaining testing normality. 164.67.226.59 20:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)bagsc

One of 5 why's

Why were hypothesis testing methods not included?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_testing

Did the front page break these techs down to individual method?

shouldn't Process Maps be hypertexted?

It has the concept at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Maps

I suggest...

Process Capability Analysis needs to be listed directly on the front page instead of displaying it via Statistical Process Control

Also the content from the external link at

http://www.statgraphics.com/capability_analysis.htm

should be integrated

I've gonna to list the tools alphabetically

Software for Six Sigma

I have added one section of Software for Six Sigma. Please make comments and review it critically —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.59.220.210 (talk • contribs) .

Removed the inline external links, this isn't a directory to software company websites. It will suffice to list the names of the software and use internal links where applicable. Femto 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


minitab software is specific for 6 Sigma. Gustavo BArroca lgbarroca@estadao.com.br

Sorry, but unless something radical has changed minitab is not specific to 6 Sigma. It's statistical software that at least up until v13 required a plug-in for Six Sigma specific calculations (there aren't that many, most are standard stat stuff). The six sigma community has adopted minitab as a useful tool that depending on which org trains you and what the company adopts is more or less standard, but it's not specifically designed for it, nor exclusive to it. -- LaylahM 6/23/2007

Hospital slashers

Why do I somehow feel bothered by the imagery suggested by the language

"...A Six Sigma process improvement team charged with getting heart attack patients from the Emergency Department into the cardiac catheterization lab for treatment faster slashed 41 minutes off the hospital's mean time?"

Yes, I know the hospital wasn't being mean to its patients, and I know they were slashing time, not catheters or arteries, but it still seems like an unfortunate choice of words.

It always trips my BS detector when I see things like "slashed 41 minutes." Does anyone believe that they have enough statistical data to measure the mean time with a standard deviation of less than a minute? Are they sure it wasn't 40 or 42? False precision always suggests the involvement of marketeers, not statisticians.

As I finally get to the real point, how do we know that the Six Sigma methodology, as such, deserves any credit for this? How do we know that just as good results might not have been obtained had management had given the same backing to a group of people and told them just to rethink the process using common sense?

I think this is propaganda, and doesn't belong in the article... unless someone can cite a published research study in a peer-reviewed journal about this hospital, which shows that the claimed results were really attributable to Six Sigma. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See "Application" above. This "quote farm" has irked me in the past and honestly seems totally useless to the articel while occupying the space people would expect be used to explain exactly what this thing (6S) is. Since I now know I'm not the only one who takes issue with this bad formatting, I'm going to remove that section and see if it helps out any. 68.39.174.238 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagging

I don't believe that the article is unbalanced; the only criticisms of Six Sigma are included in one paragraph, clearly labeled. Perhaps the article has been corrected from its original unbalanced nature? The tag should be removed.

Gloriamarie 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I think that the intro needs balancing, it reads a bit too much like an ad: "The two companies have reported to have saved literally billions of dollars" Come on...yandman
This article looks to me like it's cut-and-pasted from a brochure. Unless someone wants to rewrite this as a neutral discussion of the methodology, I'd recommend it for deletion.


I must say that I tend to agree with the statement that this article may be unbalanced. I missed the criticisms, balanced discussion of the feilds that it have been more or less successfully applied in and any mention of competig methedologies. This article should be improved to include this. Mark 16:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"Literally" billions of dollars? As opposed to what, metaphorically billions of dollars? Figuratively billions of dollars? 216.198.93.222 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's Dilbert

Today's Dilbert makes a reference to Six Sigma saying "already been widely discredited" and "Fortune magazine says... blah, blah... most companies that used Six Sigma have trailed the S&P 500". Does anyone know where Scott Adams can have got that from? If there is a good source for it, that kind of statement should go into this article. Mlewan 08:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the fortune link [1]. But I'd advise against putting it in the article because:
  1. It is taken out of context
  2. It is based on research by someone who advocates a competing methodology.
  3. There are no details given as to how it was arrived at nor any data accompanying it.
Cheers — Lost(talk) 09:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That may be, but it is a verifiable statement from a reliable source. It should go in the article. If you have a verifiable statement from a reliable source that attacks the Fortune article on the basis you mention, that should go in, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I just put it in, and attempted to be as neutral as possible. I point out that Fortune attributes the statement to a competitor, and also point out that the gist of the Fortune article is not that Six Sigma is discredited or ineffective, but that it is focussed on improving existing processes and therefore does not help companies if that is not what they need to do. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dpbsmith above, but more to the point there are two threads of legitimacy here. I think something about perceptions of Six Sigma in popular culture could suitable in the article, and Dilbert has certainly made references to it before. The the more scholarly arguments and rebuttals should also be presented as Dpbsmith suggests. - PhilipR 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I see no problem the way Dpbsmith puts it — Lost(talk) 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the comic link until it expires [2]. Femto 14:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I must learn to read the talk page! Have just added a reference under trivia - but of course you are right the reference will quickly die. I should probably revert it myself before someone else does. Springnuts 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

criticisms

Could somebody who is knowledgable put a better criticism section? Currently there is nothing, except for what is mentioned under triva. Mathmo Talk 13:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how much well referenced criticism is available, but I do not like the speed with which criticism has been removed from this article. It seems someone with interest in the methodology is defending it. I can accept that the Dilbert references were removed, but it is very disappointing that it happened without comments and motivation. Mlewan 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello I have written a criticism here:

Six Sigma critics: Shewhart/Deming Statistical Process Control vs Six Sigma

but don't know how to include it on wikipedia as it seemed locked.


Dilbert

I've reinserted it. Please discuss here before removing it. This is Wikipedia. The appropriate policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV. This means that, particularly in a criticisms section, we do not attempt to judge "truth" or to remove critical material because we judge it to be invalid.

In a criticisms section, the questions to be asked are the same as those about any opinion:

  • Is the opinion properly sourced? That is, do we know the specific person who voiced the opinion, and are we sure they really said it? (As opposed to weasel terms like "many think" or "some hold" which leave open the possibility that the opinion is merely that of the contributor)
  • Does the opinion accurately describe an opinion held by a reasonably important group of people?

For the Dilbert cartoon, the answer to both is "yes."

As WP:NPOV says, we don't assert opinions, but we do assert facts about opinions. The Dilbert cartoon and the article to which it refers are indeed "facts about opinions." An appearance in Dilbert is reasonable as an indication that the opinion that "Six Sigma is a discredited fad" does exist within the business community.

If someone has in turn published something that convincingly undermines the Dilbert strip, under the neutrality policy the appropriate thing would be to add a reference to the published source of the opposing opinion, not to remove the Dilbert material. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, who's opinion does the dilbert cartoon reflect? Its not sufficient to say that it indicates that its an opinion that exists within the business community, because that doesn't tell me anything specific of who holds the opinion, or how prevalent it is. Also, how do we know this indicates that the opinion is prevalent in the business community? The author of the comic strip may just have a bias against six sigma. Or, he may just have thought it would make for a funny comic. The point is, a comic strip cannot be reliably used in this way to infer anything specific about anyone's opinions about six sigma. I also think it is a notability issue. The magazine article is worth citing, but the fact that it was referenced in a single dilbert cartoon hardly seems notable. Should we mention dilbert comics that focus on a given topic in every wikipedia article to which there exists such a comic?

Remainder of Criticisms section

As a matter of fact, the Dilbert mention and the Fortune article it refers to are the only things in the section that are sourced. The remainder of this section should be sourced or removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.qualitydigest.com/may00/html/sixsigmacon.html I don't know how to add footnote links, but here's a good article that substantiates much of the criticism section, which incidentally, could stand to be expanded rather than shortened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.225.141.201 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2007.

Which is it?

The opening sentences read:

Six Sigma is a business improvement methodology, originally developed by Motorola to systematically improve processes by eliminating defects. Defects are defined as units that are not members of the intended population.

The next sentence states something totally different:

The objective of Six Sigma is to deliver high performance, reliability, and value to the end customer.

If the objective of Six Sigma to improve processes by eliminating defects? That is very different from delivering high performance, as one can have defect-free low-performance produccts. It certainly is different from delivering value to the end customer, as customers may place widely differing values on defect rates; customers that do their own testing of 100% of incoming parts, for example, might well value cheaper products with a higher defect rates over more expensive products with a lower but non-zero defect rate. It isn't even the same thing as reliability.

So, which is it? Which is the correct definition of Six Sigma? If there are two widely different definitions, they should be stated separately and it should be explained which organizations use which definition.

Personally, I suspect the first definition is correct, and that the second is just marketing talk intended to promote the methodology. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Six Sigma is all about internal operations and has nothing to do with the customers. I think we can safely remove the sentence from the intro. -- Emana 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
D00D, you really should strive to understand the subject before commenting. Quality improvement efforts such as Six Sigma are all about the customer, whether internal or external. See the ISO definition under Total Quality Management, Quality function deployment, or the original Mikel Harry paper, "The Nature of Six Sigma Quality," which states
In order for an organization to survive, it must provide its customers with a quality product, at the right price, on time.
Having said that, IMHO, the first definition is better since it actually mentions elimination of variation (defects), though it still comes up short on customer focus. The second definition is misleading for the reasons cited by the original poster: the focus of Six Sigma is elimination of variation, not the optimization of features (e.g., performance). --DanielPenfield 13:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for your comment, and I must apologize for the extreme statement that I have made that Six Sigma has "nothing" to do with customers. I should have said that, "the objective of Six Sigma is not to quantify or measure customer satisfaction but rather compare results to customer demands or specs". And I should have noted that the second statement is actually pointing to the organization itself that has implemented Six Sigma, not the end product. So maybe it could be reworded as, "The implementation of Six Sigma can help an organization to deliver products to its end customers at a higher performance level, reliability, and value"... although that is a side benefit that may not be realized any time soon. It very much does sound like marketing. Also, I am too old and frail to have somebody exclaim "D00D" at me :) -- Emana 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Or put another way"

The article first defines Six Sigma as "a methodology to reduce defect levels below 3.4 Defects Per (one) Million Opportunities (DPMO)" and then continues with a portion which I've snipped:

or put another way, a methodology of controlling a process to the point of plus or minus six sigma (standard deviations) from a centerline (for a total span of twelve sigma).

The first part is supposed by the cited source, which says "A metric of Six Sigma equates to 3.4 DPMO."

I see two problems with the "put another way" portion. One has to do with the ("goofy") definition of Six Sigma. It is correct to describe Six Sigma as having the goal of reducing defect levels below 3.4 DPMO, because that is the definition that practitioners use. But it is incorrect to talk about it as being connected to an actual value of six sigmas, because 3.4 DPMO corresponds to 4.5σ, as discussed later in the article.

Second, "controlling a process to the point of plus or minus six sigma (standard deviations) from a centerline (for a total span of twelve sigma)" just can't be right. It would imply that a process controlled to three sigmas would be under tighter control than one controlled to six! As the article explains later, "sigma refers to the number of standard deviations between the process mean and the nearest specification limit, rather than the standard deviation of the process." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced "Six Sigma" companies

I'm moving these here. They shouldn't be reinserted without source citations. Without a source, among other things, how do we know how deep or how wide the commitment is? Do these companies, themselves, call themselves "Six Sigma companies" in so many words? Is all of Honeywell (say) using Six Sigma? Or just a department or a pilot project? (Personally, I've certainly run into situations where a vendor or consultant brags that its products or services are used by a long list of big, famous companies, when, on examination, the truth is that one small department in the big, famous company is using it...)

Sources shouldn't be too hard to find, since companies are usually eager to publicize their quality initiatives. I'll be taking a look myself and will put them back if I find sources, but, of course, finding sources is the job of the editor who inserts the material. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Regarding the spam/vandalism from various IPs, adding links to

  • treqna.com
  • isixsigma.com
  • (and recently isixisigma.com, whether it's a deliberate hijack, or a result of simple stupidity, blindly reverting to an older version with a typo, I don't know.)

I think it's safe to assume we're dealing with a single but very persistent person.

  • Interesting to note that treqna.com is registered to Kashif Razzaqui, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, same location as several of the IPs below, which surely can't be a conincidence.

IP ranges involved:

  • 59.144.188.0 - 59.144.192.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
  • 61.246.11.0 - 61.246.11.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
  • 61.246.65.0 - 61.246.65.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
  • 61.246.80.0 - 61.246.80.255 : BTNL Delhi - location: Delhi, India
  • 125.23.21.0 - 125.23.21.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Delhi, India
  • 125.23.54.0 - 125.23.54.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Gurgaon, Haryana, India
  • 125.23.61.0 - 125.23.61.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Gurgaon, Haryana, India
  • 125.23.84.0 - 125.23.84.255 : Bharti Televentures Ltd. - ABTS - location: Delhi, India
  • 203.109.64.0 - 203.109.127.255 : Iqara Telecom India Pvt Ltd - location: Gurgaon, Haryana, India
  • 219.91.128.0 - 219.91.255.255 : Iqara Telecom India Pvt Ltd - location: Surat, Gujarat, India
  • 122.160.0.0 - 122.175.255.255 : BHARTI INFOTEL LTD., Delhi, India

Their relevant edits:

"There are 4 links in all. GE, Motorola, Treqna and isixsigma, so idiot called Femto keeps reversing this!!":
"Adding one website, I found useful." - sneak it in as innocent passer-by, nice try:
"I think this site should be on, its a tome of information, I don't give a fuck about the stupid discussion going on abt external links..." - first sign of open disregard of consensus process:
A series of "screw the debate its one sided" reverts, leading to 3 days semi-protection. Blindly overwriting any subsequent edits, a behavior that will be continued in later attacks:
"The battle continues - femto fu":
"Havent you heard of dynamic IPs or TOR - retard who thinks he owns this page will get owned." - An open threat for edit warring with proxies, which I took seriously enough in order to protect the page again for a week.


Unlike our friend from India, I'm still open to consensus on including these links, however I fail to see how they meet WP:EL, and it remains my personal opinion that this article doesn't need any external link section at all.

This has been going on long enough. One option, aside from letting abusive spammer IPs have their way, would be to blacklist treqna.com, though I don't think it would be appropriate yet for isixsigma.com. The edits come from dynamic IPs, individual blocks are not a feasible option. Since this activity is persistent and long-term, and apparently limited to this article, I'm feeling justified to semi-protect for a longer period, say 9 months. If anyone wants to review, be my guest. Femto 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

--- I'm new and apologize for it, having just read the thread on the whole to-include not-to-include link arguments, I'm not really anxious to continue it, but did at least want to point out as a Six Sigma practitioner something about iSixSigma (no I don't sell Six Sigma, train, or have any affilitations with the companies that do -- I'm a consultant who does Six Sigma projects for companies that need my help). Yes, the site is heavily promoted and has lots and lots and lots of advertising on it, but think of all that crap like bilboards on the highway, the reason it's that way is because Six Sigma professionals (especially new ones) go there to get information and take advantage of the job shop and discussion forums. So advertisers flock to and use it to take advantage of the really high volume of their target audience that goes there, but it's original intent and puropose is not really to advertise those services. With the relatively newer iSixSigma magazine (big, glossy, and commercial) it's focus may have changed since I frequented it a lot. Don't know if this helps with applying any criteria to whether or not to include it. My own opinion is no. Though I love the site and find it very useful, I would direct someone I was mentoring to the site and tell them to jump into the discussions to get peer perspectives and help, but not to someone who just wanted to learn more about it. --LaylahM 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Roles required for implementation

The "Roles required for implementation" section says there are 5 roles, yet lists 6. I considered simply changing the "5" to 6, but then that number may disagree with the referenced book. Does anyone know if the book defines 5 roles or 6?

Dunno about the book, my guess is that greenbelts are not required. Writing as a greenbelt that is certainly my experience. Greglocock 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Unfortunately, the problem is that the roles are not standardized in terms specifically of what roles are necessary at any given organization or what definition they all use. I mean there are the five fundamental basic ones you'll find nearly everywhere but maybe called different things; CEO/Deployment Champion, Champion, Master Black Belt, Black Belt, & Greenbelt. (Experts are sometimes the same thing as the Black Belt or the Master Black Belt or the Champion, just depends.) It is going to depend on what your organization looks like and what they *choose* to implement. (A major reason for the wonky results and mixed results of six sigma is really bad stupid decisions about how to deploy it by company executives that just don't get it -- i.e. they want to take the diet pill not do any exercise eat bacon burgers every day and still lose 100lbs in three months.) Different six sigma deployment companies, for lack of a better way to define them, will have their own recommendations and standards that they advise their client company to adopt, but there is no one STANDARD definition of what roles are required. I could give my own experience and opinion, but they'd be just that, opinion. If you can find a way to phrase this section to indicate that there are different make-ups and here are the definitions of the various roles, instead of here are the roles one has to have.... Because honestly, a lot of organizations are also implementing a Yellow Belt role that, when I was getting certified, was thought of as a joke. On a side note, as a Black Belt, I have to say that greenbelts are critical, but that's my own opinion. --LaylahM 21:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Article and Topic

Incredibly shitty article

This article is drek. It reads like a brochure for Six Sigma. It's vague, full of corporate jargon and completely unhelpful at explaining just what the hell Six Sigma IS to a layman who's not already familiar with it or with things similar to it. I started looking at how I could improve it but gave up in disgust after realising the article in its current form is NOT salvageable. Jesus Christ, this entry makes me feel embarassed as a USER of Wikipedia, let alone at someone who writes for it.

Utterly worthless

I could not agree more. No sane human could read this mishmash of gibberish and come out with any idea of what Six Sigma is actually about (beyond vague handwaving about "eliminating defects", which are barely even defined), or how it works, or what the alleged benefits of it are, or how well it actually works. While ambiguous, vapid, shady nonsense may be exactly what Six Sigma is about, the article itself need not reflect that.

This Article Sucks

I think I'm dumber after reading it. This article immediately screams that it's selling Six Sigma. Anyone ever work on a proposal for a government contract? You know, the basic stuff, like working resumes? It sounds a lot like that: says a lot that sounds impressive, but doesn't actually say or do anything. Maybe that's not a good analogy if you've never worked on one.

Ye, but I think many of these concerns could be answered by expanding the "criticisms" section. After all, many substantive criticisms of Six Sigma (as opposed to criticisms of this article on that topic) involve claims that it is little more than a marketing ploy that lacks substantive benefits. Although expanding the "criticism" section should only be the first step...the rest of the article probably should be cleaned up at some point too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.225.141.201 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2007.
I agree with previous posts, it needs a rewrite. Expanding the cirticism is going to just slant the article or make it more confusing, because the primary thing the criticism would be about hasn't been explained well. At a minimum a big overhaul.--LaylahM 21:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More Criticism

Existing criticism is weak at best. This crap is just a jobs program for management consultants disguised as nonsense.

A Religion?

I'm a medical research and development person and reading this out of curiosity. This 6-sigma movement seems to have the traits of a religion. I agree with the stark criticism above. There is so little meat. All the acronyms like DMAIC, DMADV, etc. are just words. The whole idea of measuring outcomes of interventions is so obvious to medical professionals and all these empty words made around it don't seem to do anything. The key questions are: How much variance is good enough (those numbers 6, 4.5, 1.5, whatever are irrelevant)? Are your variance measurements valid predictors of target outcomes (e.g. customer satisfaction, bottom line, not the same thing)? How do you measure those target outcomes? How do you reconcile divergent target outcomes (e.g., customer satisfaction vs. bottom line). How do you change the process? These are just the naive questions. This article answers none of them despite all the words that it makes. Gschadow 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

After trying to read the article, I have _less_ of an idea what Six Sigma is supposed to be than before I came here. It does sound like a quasi-religious cult of some sort. I wouldn't be surprised if it possesses several of the attributes that the French government considers indicative of a dangerous cult. The article itself is worse than worthless. I think it should be rewritten completely, but for that we need someone who actually knows anything about it. Krum Stanoev 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

> The basic precepts of six sigma really are as simple as 1) figure out what your customer wants before you try to deliver it, 2) figure out what the problem really is before you decide what the solution is, 3) make sure the solution (or fix) actually fixes the root problem before you implement it, and 4) make sure you can sustain the improvement once you do implement it. Or if you are designing something new then design it so it doesn't have preventable problems. And yes, most people will say "well that's just common sense!" but when you actually deal with the people managing the real world businesses and processes or doing the work, forget it. As a professional, working in the medical industry for years, no it isn't universally or even commonly accepted to approach business decisions and problem solving this way, not even close. I've got the scars, gray hairs, and stress disorders to prove it. And have seen good people get villainized for attempting to approach problems with this and many other "common sense" approaches.

My point is, this article does not say what Six Sigma is and it does use all the gobbeldy-gook catch-phrasing that muddles the whole thing. But, all the statistical analysis components of this article that need to be cleaned up and put into better context currently just side-track understanding... At the time Six Sigma emerged, anchoring the way you solve a business/manufacturing problem with statistics was a very revolutionary way to approach business/manufacturing/design problems, because so few people actually did (do) it and because of the way in which those analytical tools get applied, and when. But the statistical analysis is only one part of a multifaceted methodology. And though nearly all of the principles and tools already existed, what Six Sigma attempts to do is apply an interpretation of the rigor and order in which the tools get applied to achieve a 1) nearly perfectly operating process/service/product that 2) meets the customer's requirements, 3) can be delivered effectively and efficiently 4) at the least (hopefully a significantly reduced) cost to the company or organization. --and yes, I have seen it do that. But honestly most businesses, and health care is one of the worst, could see an improvement from just applying any methodology consistently to what they do. I read IT and medical papers all the time and don't debunk them just because I don't know the terminology or just because they sometimes (as a layperson) seem to glory in using so much of it. This article just failed to make it accessible for the layperson, that doesn't mean the whole concept or methodology is junk.

I am a professional who has been lucky enough to see it work and also seen it fail miserably, but Six Sigma is no perfect idol and I certainly don't worship at it's altar and aside from the momentary vigorous defense of it here I don't prostheletize it either, it's just a set of tools I can use to help solve problems. Like with anything, it's what people do with it that either make it brilliant or a waste of time; groundbreaking or a lot of hot air.--LaylahM 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Michigan link

I would like to respectfully propose the addition of a link to the University of Michigan College of Engineering's Six Sigma Black Belt page, [http://cpd.engin.umich.edu/website/proedinfo.htm?id=22&itemid=57. This is a new website, to be up next week, with links to numerous six sigma programs including transactional-focused six sigma, (not described on the current Wikipedia page), short descriptions of the techniques used, and bios of well-known researchers. I am an affiliate of the College of Engineering here at U of M. (Jessicahullman 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Far as I see, the main purpose of this site is to sell educational courses. I also see no immediate content that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic article. Femto 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well put, should be omitted. DanielPenfield 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Internal Wiki Links

in the section on Quality approaches and models there are no internal wiki links even though there are lots of pages that could be linked to for example Process Mapping- can we add some of these? Shanzu 17:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Merge from Defects per million opportunities

I suggest merging the single-sentence definition for defects per million opportunities into this article. It doesn't justify a separate Wikipedia article. --SueHay 11:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Six Sigma is a cost cutting program much more than a quality improvement program. Six Sigma does not often get defects down to the claims of ist name. Rlsheehan, June 5, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlsheehan (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 June 2007.
I disagree with the reason for opposing stated above, but not necessarily with the opposition to consolidating it, though am not really sure it does warrant a separate entry. My reason for not merging primarily is that the concept of defects per million opportunities is not exclusive to Six Sigma. --LaylahM 22:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree to disagree. DPMO should be kept separate so that it can be expanded rather than merged. DanielPenfield 15:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


TRIZ and Six Sigma

While one academic is pushing these two bandwagons in the same direction, in the hope they'll collide and produce some useful offspring, is there any sign that this is a significant trend rather than the usual suspects trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of a dead paradigm? I'm in a mixing metaphors sort of a mood. Greglocock 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The front article needs to be improved....

to integrate the information at http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalCODE=ijssca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.34 (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Does it really? Looks like the same old twaddle to me. Greglocock 11:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is nonsense

Ive read this page several times and still have no idea what 'six sigma' is meant to be; the article is just a string of quasi-meaningless management consultancy jargon and fashionable corporate buzzwords. Could someone rewrite the article with all the bullshit removed, in a format suitable for wikipedia rather than an inane powerpoint presenttion.

GordonRoss 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I second that motion. 134.173.86.207 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon 15:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Better yet, consider marking the B.S. parts with comments like <!-- Needs explanation -->—that might help others focus on the most problematic sections. -- DanielPenfield 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is a bit crap - Six Sigma has been proven to be diasterous for companies! They need to add to the anti - Six Simga! 198.138.41.69 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Be sure to cite sources for this viewpoint. Dicklyon 17:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Process Out of Control

As a 25 year practitioner of the quality sciences, a certified Quality Engineer, Reliability Engineer, and Six-Sigma Black belt I feel I have some experience in this area of discussion. One thing I do know for sure is that I don’t know it all. And with that said, I would like to briefly comment on the article and the process of improving the article.

The article can be improved but for the most part has integrity and worth. Not being an expert on the rules of engagement for Wikipedia I can see some value in the constructive criticism placed within the article for citations and the like and understand that there may be justified reasons for the exclusion of some links. I will not comment on the latter as it has been done ad nauseum.

I do think that the articles length is too short to do justice to a very pervasive and deep subject but that is easily correctable with contributions from practitioners knowledgeable in the art. I hope to see more soon. Perhaps in the future (assuming there will be one) if I am convinced that the Wikipedia project can survive the onslaught of inane and insane argument and bickering I to will contribute to this article.

As to my second and most important point… If there was ever a process that was in need of a six-sigma overhaul it is the Wikipedia process of article editing and improvement. It is by all empirical evidence out-of-control and inefficient to the point where almost 2 years later this subject (article) is still unresolved.

I could offer many obvious suggestions as to how to proceed to improve this editing process but they are most likely already known, so I will not. I will, however, suggest in the strongest terms that all interested in the future of Wikipedia and articles like this one (Six-sigma) to study and fully understand the acronym DMAIC with special attention to the ‘DM’ part for in that lies the solution to all your ills. Respectfully Statman45 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Motorola Inc. - Motorola University". Retrieved Jan 29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Six_Sigma/Archive_3&oldid=1079710560"