Jim L. Smith

The recent implementation of the new quality management system requirements has generated concerns about many issues including documents and standards. 

It’s not enough to just think about it or plan for it, wish or hope or imagine it.

Last month’s column focused on statisticians and their need to transition to leaders. In order to do so, one must understand the difference between managing work/projects and leading others.

I had a discussion recently with someone who, for three decades, had been performing a statistical function at a large manufacturing company. He couldn’t understand why, in spite of excellent job performance reviews, his company had furloughed him indefinitely.

During my courses preparing quality professionals to successfully take certification exams offered by American Society for Quality (ASQ), one topic that constantly comes up is the challenge of getting organizational management to support quality initiatives.

The question of where to focus to maximize effectiveness is a conundrum.

Six Sigma is still one of the most popular methodologies in use today. As proof all one has to do is read the periodicals and textbooks or attend an ASQ section meeting or conference.

It is not uncommon to blame senior management for most of what ails an organization. However, it is past time to rethink this attitude!

Many organizations make a mistake when trying to replace their design process with Design for Six Sigma. DFSS was never intended to completely replace an organization’s existing design process. 

We quality professionals can inadvertently turn off our management team and, thereby, hurt our chances of successfully promoting good ideas.