| Assessing Six Sigma is not end-of-the-process post | | | | ISO 9000. |
| implementation, although an analysis of a failed Six | | | | The Assessment Categories in Six Sigma |
| Sigma project points out the lack of commitment by | | | | The fundamental premise of assessment in Six Sigma |
| upper management and lack of attention to the cultural | | | | is identifying and reading the gaps between 'as is' and |
| and business investment required for accomplishing | | | | 'should be' conditions of the process stages. The |
| and sustaining new tiers of performance. It is in this | | | | 'should be' list of conditions is what is established at the |
| context that assessment of Six Sigma becomes | | | | beginning of the deployment described in great length |
| necessary, especially when new attempts by | | | | for each category. The categories for assessment |
| companies on improvement projects, reveal that the | | | | are listed below: |
| journey will be long and hard. | | | | 1. Leadership |
| Assessing The Different Implementation Stages of Six | | | | 2. Communication and Implementation in Everyday |
| Sigma | | | | Activities |
| The key to the success of Six Sigma implementation | | | | 3. Project Effectiveness and Efficiency |
| lies in assessing the status quo at various stages. | | | | 4. Organizational Transformation |
| Assessments reveal the deviations the implementation | | | | 5. Customer Impact |
| efforts have taken from the intended line of progress. | | | | The requirements of these top level categories are the |
| As the deployment of Six Sigma is signified by | | | | customized topics needed for achieving overall |
| emphasis on accomplishing benchmarks in process | | | | objectives. The method of assessment contains |
| optimization and control to render progressively higher | | | | written tests and interviews starting with top level |
| degrees of quality, performance efficiency and | | | | managers down to line employees, in addition to |
| timeliness, a system of assessment needs to be inbuilt | | | | meetings and seminars. |
| which puts in place an appropriate set of checks and | | | | The overall results are shown as applicable to the |
| balances. | | | | core business process. The results of leadership |
| Six Sigma Assessment Procedures | | | | assessments that show possible areas for |
| There has not been a single assessment procedure | | | | improvements are essentially helpful in chalking out a |
| either devised or used by any one company which | | | | course correction plan. The results also show |
| applies to all processes and industries. Companies | | | | weaknesses that are to be assessed as the first step |
| successful at their Six Sigma implementation have | | | | toward fine tuning the exercise for needed changes. |
| developed and adopted their own assessment | | | | The need for assessment may be fulfilled whenever it |
| procedures. Some of them have used their own | | | | is warranted. In the normal course, where the results |
| internal audit teams with their own criteria to assess | | | | take 4-6 months to show, the assessment can be |
| the progress of Six Sigma implementation. Even using | | | | scheduled as an annual exercise. Experience from |
| the audit procedures developed by Malcolm Baldrige | | | | successful implementation of Six Sigma has shown |
| Quality Awards is not new and unique. Many Six | | | | that major roadblocks in changing an organizational |
| Sigma companies have actually gone ahead with | | | | mind set lies in sustaining the gains made. |
| evolving a custom developed audit system based on | | | | |