I couldn't imagine that the strip was referencing factual data, so I went searching for the data. I found an interesting related blog :

The article claims that more than a quarter of the Fortune 200 followed Welch's lead and dived into six sigma. Of 58 large companies that announced six sigma programs, 91% have trailed the S&P 500 ever since. Ok... why were those 58 selected (ok, that is "more than a quarter" of 200), and if that's the population on which the 91% is applied, then why does 91% of 58 not yield a nice number? Somebody apparently doesn't know basic... err... stats. Somewhat concerning when thae data comes from Charles Holland of consulting firm Qualpro, which as the article points out "espouses a competing quality improvement process". Probably because they could no longer trademark "six sigma". Actually a look at their website seems to indicate a methodology remarkably similar to classic multivariable design of experiments.

And I won't even start with the problems with basing the data off of companies that "announced" six sigma programs as opposed to those that actually did it... let alone did it well. Or all the other variables that could make a company trail the S&P 500 (but did they improve?).

Below is the quote from the Fortune article and the link to the full text:

"In fact, of 58 large companies that have announced Six Sigma programs, 91 percent have trailed the S&P 500 since, according to an analysis by Charles Holland of consulting firm Qualpro (which espouses a competing quality-improvement process)."

Fortune Article Link

I agree with the blog posting above. There are far too many additional variables that must be considered for the research to be credible. Please do not base you perception of Six Sigma on a quote by a consultant who dismisses the methodology only to favor his own methodology.

Read the reference carefully and you see that 58 companies were large, not on the S&P so they they could easily have been hand picked from thousands of large companies.

Also, note that while Six Sigma has been around for ~18 years, I believe that it's picking up steam at an exponential rate such that most of those companies have only adopted Six Sigma in the past year or two... then some out of desperation. Just think how much they would have lost without Six Sigma.

Also note that there are hundreds of reasons why a company does well or not. There is also a lot of variation in how Six Sigma is being implemented. Qualpro for example appears to be teaching MVT which is a small part of a typical Six Sigma program and is a powerful tool but doesn't apply to most situations. The same argument could be made about companies that have no top management, HR, or Engineering department, etc. If any of those functions were eliminated from a Fortune 500 company the stock would likely go up for quite a while.

KN

From the article: "In fact, of 58 large companies that have announced Six Sigma programs, 91 percent have trailed the S&P 500 since, according to an analysis by Charles Holland of consulting firm Qualpro (which espouses a competing quality-improvement process)."

If this quote were subject to a peer review, some questions that might be asked:

What is the operational definition of a "large company?"

Over what period of time was the data gathered?

Trailed the S&P 500 on what metrics? Earnings per share? EBITDA? Gross Profits? Share price? Share price increase?

How long had the companies been involved in Six Sigma? Six Months? A year? My guess is that it takes from 3 - 5 years for Six Sigma to make a dent in stock market performance.

What was the performance of the companies in question before they became involved in Six Sigma? Perhaps they have made a 50% (pick any figure here) in performance due to Six Sigma (although still trailing the S&P 500.

My guess is that most companies who have been successful at Six Sigma, were already financially sucessful prior to adopting Six Sigma (the icing on the cake phenmonenon).

I am always suspicious of companies that announce Six Sigma programs. My guess is that most did so to increase share price and investor confidence for an already poorly performing company.

All this quote did for me was to (once again) call for more rigorous research on the success and failure of Six Sigma efforts.

Whatever it is, I find Dilbert's comic effective. Take it as a wake up call.

Six Sigma needs to blend innovation. Most companies end up in the Analysis Paralysis and Incremental Improvement phases after deploying Six Sigma.

Innovation generates new products and revenues. Just think if there was no iPod, cell phone, website, video, light bulb or mutual fund. If Six Sigma community wants to get through the criticism, it needs to tweak the methodology to encorporate innovative improvements.

Most of the times Six Sigma is used as a follow up to a management idea in order to generate matrix. This is a waste of labor because it is after the fact.

Six Sigma works in operations becasue there is always a new business innovation that disrrupts current operations. Then Six Sigma goes there and fixes the process. Kind of a testing environment. Instead it should take the lead in innovation of the next generation ideas.

Everything said, Six Sigma depends on who is practicing it.

To Tom Nichols,
The blog you refer to attacks the articles' calculations but as far as I know, 53/58 = 0.91379... so I guess the author of the blog doesn't know about rounding... guess that puts his opinion in perspective.

To Kim Niles,
The articles says that the companies trailed in the S&P 500. To trail implies that - at least at the time they were picked - they were part of the S&P 500

To Jeremy,
I think that this was the point of the article and the cartoon. Companies jump on the new buzz word to make their shareholders happy. They don't do it for the right reasons and they won't even bother checking if it's good for their particular needs.

Our Six Sigma organizations are safe. Pity the Black Belt who can't provide a response to a comic strip.

Looking to Dilbert for an accurate picture of the benefits of Six Sigma is like asking Jay Leno to clarify White House policy. Consider both their audience and their agenda. Scott Adams did get me to laugh -- and to do more homework!

Fortune magazine did well to cite their source, but they should have CHECKED their source first. Qualpro seems to have an economic incentive to take shots at Six Sigma, which is at the heart of their marketing strategy. In my mind Fortune magazine just lost some credibility for choosing to quote a biased source.

Interesting article , the point the person has not checked if what was the stage of six sigma deployment , most company inform a six sigma program but do not do the justice to it , it lies in some corner in the Company with the wrong reporting line.

Pls. try a co-relation of Company who have implemented this in the spirit of it. . which are far fewer
you might see the impact.

cheers

Im putting together a presentation on Six Sigma has anyone actually got that Dilbert strip on Six Sigma they could email me? I can't find it in any of my Dilbert books/calendar or on dilber.com thanks

I have the strip on my cubicle wall.
It is dated 11-26-06

All you people need to get a life! If you need to spend this much energy defending your pet program from a comic strip, doesn't that, in itself, say something about it?

I've been around a long time and I'm sick and tired of "pointy-haired" managers reading a magazine about the latest fad in efficiency or quality-control and then forcing the peons to do even more stupid stuff. Then, when that program fails, instead of getting rid of the idiot manager, they lay off the very workers who are the only ones actually making money for the company.

There is no program in the world that will protect a company from bad management.

I'm going through green belt right now. if the Black belts and Master Black Belts that I have seen are typical. Then all six sigma is really doing is forcing people that don't know statistics through a series of steps that almost force them to make a decision or change based upon the results of those steps. Without them actually understanding what any of the math really means.

Anytime you take people that don't know math and try to force them into making decisions using complex math they really don't understand, its trouble.