INTERVIEW: Dag Kroslid, Advisory Business Services Manager, Norway

What does Six Sigma mean to you?
Can you summarise these three approaches to introducing Six Sigma?
What advice would you give to organisations deciding which approach to adopt?
So what is your view of Six Sigma deployments in Europe right now?
What would you advise companies who may be experiencing a lack of early results and breakthrough improvement from their Six Sigma projects?
What is most important in getting active involvement from management to achieve breakthrough improvement?
Deployment of Six Sigma with support, design or development functions can sometimes be a real challenge for many companies. Do you see as much return of value in implementing Six Sigma in these areas?
What tools of a qualitative nature can add value to understanding and improvements related to issues that are not quantifiable?
What about the future?

What does Six Sigma mean to you?

For me, Six Sigma is an extremely powerful initiative for achieving ongoing and breakthrough improvement. Through its profound handling of variation, it distinguishes itself in today’s jungle of improvement concepts, and offers refreshing thoughts and practices to almost any company.

Dag Kroslid

It is fact-based and uses rigorous project methodologies and statistical tools – not only for cost cutting but also for revenue generation.
Companies can (and do) take very different approaches to introducing Six Sigma, and so it is a very flexible initiative that can be tailored to the organisation’s size, strategic goals and business challenges. These approaches can be categorised broadly into three main strategic models and each implementation method results in vastly different levels of impact. Due to its broad scope and comprehensive content, however, it is vital that Six Sigma deployments remain pragmatic no matter which approach is adopted.

Can you summarise these three approaches to introducing Six Sigma?

When companies strive for competitive advantages from applying Six Sigma, a “company-wide strategy” is usually employed. This approach is typically “top-down” and penetrates deep into all functions of the business, and undoubtedly achieves the most dramatic results. This is especially true when Six Sigma is used for design improvement and new product development, i.e. Design for Six Sigma.
When Six Sigma is applied in selected areas of an organisation; the initiative follows an “improvement programme” approach. Here Six Sigma is implemented in target areas to harvest potential for improvement in the day-to-day business of the company, commonly focusing on ongoing improvement. It is more of a “middle in” approach, spreading laterally from one business unit or area to another.
Some companies (often smaller in size) will use Six Sigma simply as a toolbox or project methodology for driving and enhancing existing improvement initiatives and strategies. This “bottom up” approach can be good for making small improvements and is a step towards having an improvement programme, but it is really quite difficult to build significant results from Six Sigma per se using this model.

What advice would you give to organisations deciding which approach to adopt?

Organisations really need to be aware of their strategic goals and improvement targets.
In some cases, breakthrough improvement is absolutely necessary, particularly when the gap between current and desired performance is very large. In other cases, gaining maturity with ongoing improvement will suffice, such as when control of the processes through systematic improvement in the lower functions help stretch and contribute to the strategic operations.
Within some companies, the senior management will be satisfied with a 0,5% improvement or reduction in cost base from a Six Sigma initiative, while for others the target may be 5% or more. Both numbers are significant but the scenarios are very different.
Consideration of the best approach to adopt should always be in context with the company’s size, strategic goals and business challenges. The important question to ask is “Why deploy Six Sigma?” Is the organisation going through a cost cutting exercise, or using Six Sigma to penetrate extra market share? That is, what do you specifically want to achieve? These are questions that need consideration when evaluating the scope of a Six Sigma initiative, also taking into serious consideration the resources required to achieve these goals.
The scope of a Six Sigma deployment within any organisation must be the strategic decision of senior management, and their support is crucial to the success of the initiative, whatever approach adopted*.

* Results from a survey by Dag Kroslid. Kjell Magnusson (ABB), and Bo Bergman (Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden), among leading European Six Sigma companies. The number of respondents totalled 47. The question in this item of the survey was “What is the role of Six Sigma (including DfSS) in your company?”

So what is your view of Six Sigma deployments in Europe right now?

Firstly, I think it is important to remember that there are various elements of Six Sigma which are at different stages of maturity regardless of their geographical location. The statistical tools applied in Six Sigma have a strong track record and a history of some 50 to 80 years. The DMAIC methodology has also had some very good theory development as a core process improvement practice and is now a fairly mature concept. Design for Six Sigma, on the other hand, is quite different. Many companies have embarked on DFSS with great success, but it is often difficult to share the approach, results and learning curves because it is exactly these very projects that contribute to the competitiveness of these organisations. There remains much confusion in defining DFSS (there are many articles on this), and this leads me to believe this is a much less mature concept, requiring further research and development.
I have conducted research comparing Six Sigma initiatives by American and Asian corporations with initiatives in Europe and I have several concerns regarding the attention that Six Sigma receives and its impact on organisations in Europe. While we have some good examples of very successful Six Sigma initiatives in European companies, it is well documented that the deployment in the US started earlier, has yielded better results and enjoyed broader attention. The same applies to countries such as India and South Korea, but to a lesser extent. They seem to have a higher level of commitment to Six Sigma – perhaps even to business improvement and excellence over all. Cultural, political, industrial and micro economical factors are all significant reasons for our lack of interest for Six Sigma in Europe. Another reason is the general scepticism from senior management in Europe towards yet another improvement program of US origin, which often does in some ways conflict with European management styles and culture.
Having said that, I believe there is actually a great opportunity in Europe to use Six Sigma and also Design for Six Sigma to gain a competitive advantage, especially with such a strong and capable workforce as well as a historically rich design tradition. Six Sigma is a concept designed by and for industry, but with increasing academic involvement in Europe. I believe maturity in DFSS will certainly follow. We are starting to make real headway with this now, and there are official Research and Development initiatives such as EUrobust that specifically work towards improving the competitiveness of European companies.

What would you advise companies who may be experiencing a lack of early results and breakthrough improvement from their Six Sigma projects?

Firstly, I would ask whether it is appropriate for the company to be looking for breakthrough improvement and if so, have they scoped their initiative accordingly? Breakthrough improvement means applying Six Sigma to cut costs significantly, work on capital improvement, enhance revenue generation and make leap-changes in customer focus and satisfaction – essentially working the methodology and tools into all business functions and beyond to customers and suppliers. It is not enough to work on just one or two parts and claim that it is “breakthrough improvement”.
Furthermore, I would advise companies looking for breakthrough improvements to make sure that the necessary resources are available, such as Master Black Belts, cross-functional task force teams and finances. If these prerequisites are not present, it may very well be that the company would benefit more from starting with a smaller scope, and as they mature with Six Sigma, then extend into a breakthrough improvement initiative.

What is most important in getting active involvement from management to achieve breakthrough improvement?

Senior management commitment is equally important for ongoing improvement as it is for breakthrough improvement, and working with any kind of improvement initiative – without it is very frustrating.
I often take part in programme development and feasibility studies with the clients I work with in order to – among other things – ensure that strong management commitment is in place. Even more important, however, is to maintain this commitment – Six Sigma is a long journey and it is important to occasionally challenge the priorities and decisions of management so that your initiative stays focussed and avoids complacency. Formulation of mission statements is a good way of concisely answering the rationale behind why Six Sigma is being deployed, and is also an important tool for helping to maintain a strong direction in your initiative. Broadening the scope of your mission statements at higher management levels and adjusting the goals as you mature in deploying Six Sigma can also be very effective.

Deployment of Six Sigma with support, design or development functions can sometimes be a real challenge for many companies. Do you see as much return of value in implementing Six Sigma in these areas?

It is exactly within these areas where the most potential exists for Six Sigma’s return on investment. Process improvement by definition is about fixing something that was designed in a way that left an improvement potential. Using Six Sigma in your design functions can bring huge benefits, as the company will avoid the need for redesign and find the real leverage of improvement in your products and processes. Production processes historically have more measurements and more clearly defined processes, and so may be an easier area for companies new to Six Sigma to build their base of experience from.
I think a company should start looking at these support and design processes after approximately one year of Six Sigma deployment, depending on the experience gained and the company’s objectives. There are theories focusing on reaching 5 sigma before moving into these areas, but I would move as quickly as possible because they are so influential on the company’s output

What tools of a qualitative nature can add value to understanding and improvements related to issues that are not quantifiable?

The statistical tools in Six Sigma are the most widely trained and publicised however, without the tools of a more qualitative nature, Six Sigma would not be where it is today. Certainly if you look beyond process improvement to Design for Six Sigma, there are tools such as the Kano model, CTQ analysis, TRIZ, and customer interviewing which probably get more credit than the DMAIC methodology.
I think more companies are also incorporating the “softer” skills (including group facilitation techniques and the seven management tools) into their Six Sigma training, showing that their importance is being increasingly recognised. This is encouraging for both process improvement and product development. Despite the importance of qualitative tools, however, I think Six Sigma is not as strong on issues that are not quantifiable. Take for example, employee issues such as satisfaction, which is not a specific target area for Six Sigma initiatives – there are much better tools and methods in existence to analyse and solve these specific issues. It is a mistake to try and make Six Sigma the answer to everything – it is not.

What about the future?

Amongst the jungle of improvement concepts, I see most of them becoming increasingly smart and holistic. This is not confined to concepts such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing but also to concepts such as CRM, TQM, KM, TPM, SMED and so on.
Today, Six Sigma is not what it was 15 years ago. It has already developed from its roots, taking elements from other initiatives and improvement methods and theories. Companies today are demanding much more tailor-made solutions to their business issues, and although Six Sigma methodology still plays a pivotal role, the name tags of these individual initiatives are less important.
There is already a trend of organisations combining their own composition of the right tools, methods and initiatives in order to address their business issues in the most effective way. While some are sceptical to the new names and the “re-packaging” of old improvement concepts into new personalised ones, I believe this is extremely positive. It develops the improvement concepts, including Six Sigma, and make them increasingly applicable.