Talk:Six Sigma
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | Six Sigma received apeer review by Wikipedia editors, which is nowarchived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article was nominated fordeletion on December 6 2005. The result ofthe discussion wasKeep. |
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
This page is archived byClueBot III. |
re: this passage: "One should also note that the calculation of Sigma levels for a process data is independent of the data being normally distributed. In one of the criticisms of Six Sigma, practitioners using this approach spend a lot of time transforming data from non-normal to normal using transformation techniques. It must be said that Sigma levels can be determined for process data that has evidence of non-normality."
Don't we actually mean: "Sigma levels can be determined for process data that has evidence of non-normality. However, most Six Sigma tools assume normality. [source:https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/statistical-analysis/understanding-statistical-distributions-six-sigma/] Six Sigma is criticized because practitioners spend a lot of time transforming data from non-normal to normal using transformation techniques.
see: "Most processes, particularly those involving life data and reliability, are not normally distributed. Most Six Sigma and process capability tools, however, assume normality. Only through verifying data normality and selecting the appropriate data analysis method will the results be accurate."https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/statistical-analysis/understanding-statistical-distributions-six-sigma/Everydayrationality (talk)21:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence on the page says "It was introduced by American engineer Bill Smith while working at Motorola in 1999." Going toBill Smith's page shows that he died in 1993. Which article is wrong? This one, or Bill Smith's?Simplediscipline (talk)06:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In order to preserve a content-neutral tone, I think we ought to merge this section with another section of the article-- we could find somewhere to merge the potential negative effects section with the bits that go over potential benefits, for ease of contrast? Just so that the dimension of "is this helpful / how could this potentially have different parallel effects" is placed in context for the reader. (Idk, I haven't had my coffee yet, so I'm a little groggy lol) -- also, eek! The "Many companies announce six sigma initiatives and then appear to fall behind other companies" is a bit of apost-hoc, ergo propter hoc because many companies *announce* six sigma initiatives probably following internal pressure to improve, in response to poor performance; in essence, there isn't *necessarily* a causal relationship here, because-- while it could be a very good *indicator* of trouble beneath the surface-- it's not actually necessarily *causing* that trouble, per se? It additionally seems oddly un-encyclopedic to *functionally* state-- and I'm paraphrasing a bit here just to show the main idea of the section-- "Many companies have done poorly after doing six sigma stuff" in a section titled "hey six sigma could also be bad" without adding more references, sources commenting on a potential causal relationship, etc-- usually, before giving any kind of negative perspective section, it's sooooort of best practice to find a bunch of sources to go with it, and a slightly more in-depth dialogue on the causality of it-- just to avoid giving unnecessary negative press, etc. But, argh, I don't feel up to the task of messing around with it all and playing around until the right combination of accuracy and tone emerges-- thoughts? Atomic putty? Rien!14:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is described as "oft-mentioned" in the criticism section yet, ironically, is not defined in the article.162.246.139.210 (talk)16:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
