|
||
Six Sigma compared to TQM
The truth is that both Six Sigma and TQM can bring a company success. This becomes obvious when one compares successful Six Sigma companies with successful TQM companies: (A) They're both successful, meaning that though each used a different approach each arrived at the same end; (B) their organizations, in general, are similar, so that it would seem that their respective approaches were also generally similar. Now the question becomes, how far do you go in defining what "general" means? If you expand the definition of "general" to the point that it could mean anything, then the differences between Six Sigma and TQM are indeed minimal. But by sticking even to a broad definition of general-"in most cases"-you come up against the fact that the differences between Six Sigma and TQM are more than minimal; in many ways they're maximal; even fundamental. To put the thing as plainly as possible, you could say that TQM is largely theory-based while Six Sigma is largely experience-based. Now, in all of life's endeavors-business, politics, sports, art, etc.-the preferred model, if one wishes to use a model to get ahead, is always the experience-based model, because you're seeking after an experience rather than something theoretical and abstract. You want a certain result, and you want your model to be a result of results rather than of what-ifs. Of course, most models have to begin as theory-based, if any sort of pioneering effort is being made; pioneering implies that no one has gone before you; you don't have an experience-based model to choose; you don't have the luxury of an experience-based model; and so you create a theory-based model and then begin your experience. This, largely, is the story of TQM-a pioneering effort, and therefore theory-based, and therefore not particularly particular in certain important areas, such as how to successfully implement it and keep it successfully implemented.
With Six Sigma, you have a case of giants standing on the shoulders of giants. It was business legends such as Jack Welch that saw the need for Six Sigma and that patiently, thoughtfully built it from what they'd learned through their own experiences with theory-based models. One problem with TQM is that its users tend to place quality above everything else, thus leaving other essential components of their business organization un- or underdeveloped. This is a natural result of the theory-based model-it idealizes. The experience-based model, contrariwise, is about the practical and the real. It sees the need for quality without losing sight of other needs. Be sure to really do your homework when investigating the differences between Six Sigma and TQM. Read articles, reports, reviews, to be sure, but also take a close look at the businesses that ascribe to either approach. It could just be that, while the results are the same in both, the ways to those results contrast dramatically. Six Sigma places as much emphasis on the way as on the result; which means, of course, that with Six Sigma you hit the ground running, and for serious businesspeople that's always the best way to hit the ground.
|
||
Copyright 2003-2020 by BusinessKnowledgeSource.com - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy, Terms of Use |