1. "I am voting Democrat in November."
2. "I hold beliefs in both God and evolution, with no internal conflict."
3. "I am creating a Lean Six Sigma training program."
What do these three statements have in common?
All three can start a lively, if not heated, debate. Yes, Quality has now joined with Politics and Religion, creating a new triune of social taboos.
Over the past few months, I have had uncomfortable encounters with colleagues who have told me exactly what they thought of the curriculum we developed for Lean Six Sigma training. In many cases, we were told that we omitted a crucial topic, and because of this, our entire implementation program would fail. Or, they would dive down in the weeds and argue that we should call a SIPOC diagram a COPIS diagram since customers always come first.
In the first case, the "all or nothing success" belief is simply not true. In the big scheme, will we fail because we introduce Kano models but leave the House of Quality out of our Yellow Belt training? Or because we defer the discussion of SPC charts until Black Belt? As I jokingly point out, there are hundreds of ways our implementation can fail, so we can't pin all our hopes of failure on just one topic.
I am less jocular when dealing with the second case, in which people argue about the correct pronunciation of poka yoke or whether Sturgis' rule should always be applied when constructing histograms. Those are the type of non-value-added arguments better saved for a Lean Six Sigma remake of Waiting for Godot.
Let's hear from you: Do you have colleagues who feel useful only when they dictate which tools should be implemented and in which way? How do you handle them? Egads -- Are they ever right?
© 2016 Mary McShane-Vaughn