六西格玛不是全面质量管理WhySixSigmaisnotTQM.docxVIP

六西格玛不是全面质量管理WhySixSigmaisnotTQM 第一篇：六西格玛不是全面质量管理Why Six Sigma is not TQM Why Six Sigma is not TQM By Thomas Pyzdek* February 2001 My colleagues often tell me that there is no real difference between Six Sigma and TQM. Show me where Six Sigma involves anything new. Six Sigma employs some of the same tried-and-true tools and techniques of TQM. Both Six Sigma and TQM emphasize the importance of top-down support and leadership. Both approaches make it clear that continuous improvement of quality is critical to long-term business success. The PDSA cycle used in TQM is not fundamentally different than the Six Sigma DMAIC cycle. But there are differences. Critical differences. And these differences explain why the popularity of TQM has waned, while Six Sigmas popularity continues to grow. The difference, in a word, is management. TQM provided only very broad guidelines for management to follow. Guidelines so abstract and general that only the most gifted leaders were able to knit together a successful deployment strategy for TQM. Business magazines and newspapers reported widespread failure of TQM efforts. True, solid research showed that organizations which succeeded in successfully implementing TQM reaped substantial rewards. But the low probability of success deterred many organizations from trying TQM. Instead, many organizations opted for ISO 9000. ISO 9000 promises not world-class performance levels, but standard performance. But it provides clear criteria and a guarantee that meeting these criteria will result in recognition. In contrast, TQM offered a mushy set of philosophical guidelines and no way to prove that one had accomplished their quality goals. Unlike TQM, Six Sigma was not developed by techies who only dabbled in management. Six Sigma was created by some of Americas most gifted CEOs. People like Motorolas Bob Galvin, AlliedSignals Larry Bossidy, and GEs Jack Welch. These people had a single goal in mind: to make their businesses as successful as possible