There’s a lot of truth to the old axiom that says what’s not measured is not managed. Even so, not all metrics are created equal – which is why many organizations might add the proviso: “…especially if the metrics being applied are not Six Sigma-friendly.”
Among the specific outcomes that Six Sigma metrics track are things like cycle time, cost, value, and labor. Significantly, they measure progress against quality imperatives – both for internal initiatives (tracking how outputs improve), and external efforts, such as quality requirements of outside partners.
It’s all important, of course, because use of standard measures enables the kind of rigorous tracking that guides the way to increased profits, productivity and customer satisfaction. And it’s the standards behind Six Sigma that make them superior, advocates believe.
For example, Six Sigma standards require the continuous tracking of data, which provides a more comprehensive view of the project or process being implemented, and its performance. They also require that it’s quantifiable data that’s being tracked – a key reason for utilizing continuous versus discrete data. Discrete data is either not measurable or tends to provide incomplete or inaccurate findings. Six Sigma standards also hold for the collection of data as needed and only when it pertains to action.
Such standards have made Six Sigma metrics widely used, from the classic quality measures like timeliness, accuracy and cost to the somewhat more esoteric process measures like rolled-throughput yield to DPMO (defects per million opportunities). That doesn’t, however, mean that they’re always chosen wisely – and that leads to ineffectiveness that can derail projects.
You may enjoy: How to Avoid a Six Sigma Project Failure
One of the most common mistakes made in selecting the most relevant Six Sigma metrics is when a team falls into the quantity over quality trap. We’re awash in data, which often leads to a tendency to collect and report on data with a “more is merrier” abandon.
In fact, discernment is key to Six Sigma standards, and that demands careful consideration of how metrics will be used and what kind of ROI will be accomplished as a result of the effort of data collection. The right metrics based on solid analysis establishes the framework for insights that matter, whether they’re performance targets or areas needing improvement.
Another failure is establishing a direct association between the metrics and the organization’s goals and objectives. This evaluation may not be conducted in a sufficiently thorough manner. Rather than forge ahead with them anyway (which can happen when management is particularly attached to certain measures), they should be abandoned until better options are weighed. This may well require a re-examination of goals and objections. Without their sufficient definition, data will be meaningless.
Organizations will be well-served by putting time into understanding Six Sigma metrics, the standards they represent and the framework for making them pay off with actionable insights.
The rising visibility of Six Sigma and everything it entails can generate numerous advantages to those who make this investment. Customers are inherently attracted to companies using Six Sigma to uphold quality imperatives. Moreover, these metrics help boost sales by tracking and signaling adjustments to what customers want. Finally, they create a greater nimbleness among managers in enabling more timely response to project and process issues.
