Six Sigma
Six Sigma: Definition and underlying theory§
Roger G. Schroeder a,*, Kevin Linderman a,1, Charles Liedtke b,2, Adrian S. Choo c,
Motorola originally developed Six Sigma in 1987 and targeted an aggressive goal of 3.4 ppm defects (Barney,
2002b; Folaron, 2003). In 1994 Larry Bossidy, CEO of
AlliedSignal, introduced Six Sigma as a business initiative to ‘‘produce high-level results, improve work processes, expand all employees’ skills and change the culture’’ (ASQ, 2002, p. 14). This was followed by the well-publicized implementation of Six Sigma at General
Electric beginning in 1995 (Slater, 1999).
Currently, there are many books and articles on Six
Sigma written by practitioners and consultants and only a few academic articles published in scholarly journals
(Linderman et al., 2003, 2004). Reviewing the practitioner literature and these academic articles provides a starting point for defining Six Sigma.
Six Sigma has been defined in the practitioner literature in a variety of ways. This disparity leads to some uncertainty and confusion. Consider some of the following definitions from the practitioner articles.
Quality Progress called Six Sigma a ‘‘high-performance, data-driven approach to analyzing the root causes of business problems and solving them’’ (Blakeslee, 1999,
p. 78). Harry and Schroeder (2000), in their popular book on Six Sigma, described it as a ‘‘business process that allows companies to drastically improve their bottom line by designing and monitoring everyday business activities in ways that minimize waste and resources while increasing customer satisfaction’’ (p. vii). Hahn et al.
(2000) described Six Sigma as a disciplined and statistically based approach for improving product and process quality. On the other hand, Sanders and Hild
(2000) called it a management strategy that requires a culture change in the organization. Recognizing the divergence in definitions, Hahn et al. (1999) noted that
Six Sigma has
Roger G. Schroeder a,*, Kevin Linderman a,1, Charles Liedtke b,2, Adrian S. Choo c,
Motorola originally developed Six Sigma in 1987 and targeted an aggressive goal of 3.4 ppm defects (Barney,
2002b; Folaron, 2003). In 1994 Larry Bossidy, CEO of
AlliedSignal, introduced Six Sigma as a business initiative to ‘‘produce high-level results, improve work processes, expand all employees’ skills and change the culture’’ (ASQ, 2002, p. 14). This was followed by the well-publicized implementation of Six Sigma at General
Electric beginning in 1995 (Slater, 1999).
Currently, there are many books and articles on Six
Sigma written by practitioners and consultants and only a few academic articles published in scholarly journals
(Linderman et al., 2003, 2004). Reviewing the practitioner literature and these academic articles provides a starting point for defining Six Sigma.
Six Sigma has been defined in the practitioner literature in a variety of ways. This disparity leads to some uncertainty and confusion. Consider some of the following definitions from the practitioner articles.
Quality Progress called Six Sigma a ‘‘high-performance, data-driven approach to analyzing the root causes of business problems and solving them’’ (Blakeslee, 1999,
p. 78). Harry and Schroeder (2000), in their popular book on Six Sigma, described it as a ‘‘business process that allows companies to drastically improve their bottom line by designing and monitoring everyday business activities in ways that minimize waste and resources while increasing customer satisfaction’’ (p. vii). Hahn et al.
(2000) described Six Sigma as a disciplined and statistically based approach for improving product and process quality. On the other hand, Sanders and Hild
(2000) called it a management strategy that requires a culture change in the organization. Recognizing the divergence in definitions, Hahn et al. (1999) noted that
Six Sigma has