Maximizing Value and Minimizing Resource Consumption

Anyone familiar with both methods will be quick to point out the differences in scope, method and the resource requirements for completion.  Some will argue that Six-Sigma™ is too complex, too resource intensive and not consistently successful within organizational cultures that do not exhibit strong “top down” leadership.  You will also hear that Six-Sigma™ can be applied to anything thus rendering any other problem solving approach unnecessary.  Our position is that for any organization to maximize the potential value realized with their problem solving efforts, a two part strategy will be most effective.

Strategy One:    For complex multi-variable problems, Six-Sigma™ AND Apollo RCA™ should be applied in concert; they are complimentary methods and not conflicting, as many people believe.

Strategy Two:      For any other problem types, or even if the complex problems are significantly lacking in data, Apollo RCA™ may be more effective, especially when considering the resources and time spent collecting additional data to solve the problem.

Upon the initial dissection of complex problems, the cause and effect relationships will rarely be known.  Establishing an evidence-based, cause and effect chart will more quickly help the team clarify the known causes from the possible causes, thus greatly reducing the time spent gathering data and performing statistical evaluations.  Six-Sigma™ relies on “Good” or “Gage R&R” data and on a statistically significant sample size (typically 25 sets of data or more) that will produce reliable conclusion.  Data gathering and statistical evaluations will never be completely eliminated; however, they can be greatly reduced by spending more time up-front developing the cause and effect chart which will focus the team on the causes requiring validation instead of pursuing the many possible theories requiring subsequent and systematic data collection, evaluation and possible dismissal until the remaining causes stand on their own. 

Therefore, if you are faced with problems that are not as complex but still present a challenge, or if you are in a situation where you don’t have a statistically significant sample size of data available, Apollo RCA™ will likely be a more cost and resource effective approach to start with in your quest to solve the problem.

For problems of lesser complexity, the time required to complete the Six-Sigma™ project will greatly exceed the time needed to complete the Apollo RCA™.  If your objective is to implement an effective solution with the least investment of time and money, an Apollo RCA™ will be your best starting point.  While supporting data and evidence will be required for an Apollo RCA™, the rigor applied should be commensurate with the significance of the problem.

Herein lies what we believe to be a major improvement opportunity within the Six-Sigma™ process.   Currently in the Analyze phase of Six-Sigma™ addressing the “Where and why do Defects Occur?”, most Six-Sigma™ processes rely on overly simplistic and incomplete analysis techniques but then expend great effort to prove/disprove the results originating from these incomplete techniques.  Most Six-Sigma™ techniques rely on the “5 Why’s”, “Brainstorming”, “Fishbone”, “FMEA” and, in some variations, guessing at the “probable root causes” are utilized as approaches to understand the effect of the “X’s” on the “Y’s”.  Design of Experiment or DoE is the most powerful tool in the Improve phase of Six-Sigma™, but it is often the tool least used.  Further, most Six-Sigma™ approaches confuse the notion of cause and effect by utilizing the “5 Why’s” or “Fishbone” techniques and calling it a “cause and effect analysis”.  Therefore, there are key differences between the two methodologies which will be examined in following posts.
http://epsrca.com