Kaizen and Six Sigma
Kaizen and Six Sigma
Kaizen and Six Sigma
History
Function
Facts
Differences
Six Sigma uses more statistical analysis than Kaizen; Six Sigma
aims for as close to zero defects as possible, calling for a
maximum of 3.4 defects for every million opportunities, which
creates a 99.9997 percent success rate.
Benefits
Six Sigma and Kaizen help save money for companies; Motorola has
reported saving $17 billion since 2006 because of Six Sigma.
More than half of the Fortune 500 companies use Six Sigma,
including General Electric and Honeywell. Toyota and Canon both
reported saving money and increasing efficiency by using Kaizen.
Kaizen isn't so much a methodology as it needs to be a "belief"
system. A recognition that there is always a better way and what
is currently being done today, may not be good enough tomorrow.
As the world grows more and more global, firms find themselves
in direct competition with companies all over the planet.
Besides strong brands, customer proximity and further sales
strategies, quality has become a major component for the
competitive advantage of organizations. Today’s philosophy is no
longer mass production like in the beginning of the 20th
century, but the provision of high quality goods at affordable
prices. In order to follow this strategy, organizations have to
set a larger focus on quality itself.
During the early 1900s the era of craft production at which only
one item was produced at a time by well educated and highly
skilled technicians started to move towards its end. Craft
production was characterized by manufacturing individual
products exactly meeting an individual customers requirement.
Despite the wonderful idea that every consumer could specify
quite individual wishes, craft production also featured negative
sides, like the high prices for the end product which were also
the driving force for its fall. At a time at which a large mass
of people sought for cheap products, for instance automobiles
affordable for almost everyone, mass production edged out craft
production of its previously strong position. By manufacturing
large amounts of automobiles which were characterized by user
friendliness and easy handling, Henry Ford, pioneer in the
production of automobiles and founder of mass production,
managed to supply a major part of the demanding public with
passenger vehicles at highly attractive prices. Thus, a great
number of more or less equal vehicles had been produced to
satisfy the market; however, the low price was offered at the
expense of quality.1
Kaizen and Six Sigma do not only go about avoiding mistakes, but
also about improving processes by identifying and eliminating
potentialities for defects. At this point, it is important to
analyze the status quo at which an organization performs at the
moment in time of the implementation of a management method.
Both management systems do so in a systematic way which assists
companies in their intention of defect elimination and
improvement. Both Kaizen and Six Sigma are similarly successful
in these undertakings.12
In how far Kaizen and Six Sigma are management systems, is open
to discussion. A management system may be defined as a company’s
process of strategic planning, and .translating the strategic
plan into and execution plan including operational targets..13
Kaizen and Six Sigma may be an element of the execution plan or
a management system by itself. In the proceedings of this paper,
Kaizen and Six Sigma will be named interchangeably with the
terms management system or management method.
AGUAYO, author of the book Dr. Deming, The American Who Taught
The Japanese About Quality, decided to explain what quality is
not, instead of giving an exact wording.
Background
Two decades before the oil crisis of the 1970s the world economy
boomed. Insatiable demand for new technologies and products,
rapidly expanding markets, customer-orientation towards quantity
rather than quality and cheap raw materials were typical
characteristics of the business climate during this time; a
period at which innovative strategies flourished.40
The oil crises of 1973 and 1979 totally altered the business
environment. Consumer behavior changed with the demand for
higher quality, at the same time costs for raw materials, energy
and labor significantly increased. Moreover, companies were
confronted with rising competition in small and saturated
markets.41 Despite the drastic changes in foreign trade, Western
managers retained innovation as a strategy and ignored warnings
and demands from customers that a different approach would have
been indispensable. Western managers did not take notice of the
approximation of the competitive threat of Japanese firms, a
fact that was to cause significant disadvantages for Western
companies in the years to follow.42
.Kaizen..37
Kaizen derives from the two Japanese words Kai and Zen. Kai
stands for change and Zen means in a positive sense. Altogether,
it stands for continuous improvement.38 Being part of both
business and private life, the word Kaizen spread around the
world and became known as the most important Japanese management
method permanently striving for improvement. Essential is not
only improvement on products, but also the improvement of all
procedures which include production, commercialization and
customer care, as well as the constant and further development
of employees.39
Dimensions of Kaizen
38
2.3.1. Background
Six Sigma was relatively unknown until the mid 1990s when well-
known
quality program at GE, Six Sigma made a name for itself and the
concept spread
A PROFOUND COMPARISON
Lining up Kaizen and Six Sigma next to each other, the observer
will identify a
Despite the evidence that both Kaizen and Six Sigma work in
practice, they are
that nothing new had been developed since DEMING taught his
thoughts about
equal . the same goals, the same concept, and the same tools.
70
teachings and the all praised DMAIC road map can be traced back
to DEMING.s
PDCA cycle. Further, the DPMO concept derives from the theory of
defects per
This chapter will compare Kaizen and Six Sigma with one another
and put their
71
Both Kaizen and Six Sigma strive for improvement and premium
quality. Despite
72
These goals are processes that take place continuously and never
come to an
end. The Kaizen philosophy states that there is always room for
further
end.
CONCLUSION
Sigma were simply fashions and that they were just the same
concept or
Six Sigma are different from one another, also because the equal
tools applied are
What had been asked in the research question of this thesis was
whether these
Thus, the first conclusion can be drawn: Kaizen and Six Sigma
can exist next to
might be the case that other tools under Kaizen may not be as
applicable as
possible.
101
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag
Brue G., Launsby R. G. (2003); Design for Six Sigma; New York:
McGraw Hill
books
Cultural and Technical Change; New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hanser Verlag
GmbH
106
Gesellschaft
Haufe
2002, n.p.a.;
<www.wissensmanagement.net/online/archiv/2002/09_1002/ideenmanage
n.p.a.;
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1989/04/
24/7189
108
pp. 20-24
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/
24/8381
n.p.a.;
<http://www.qualitydigest.com/may00/html/sixsigmapro.html>;
Access 04.02.2007