What is the difference between Six Sigma and CMMI?

Answer 1

Six Sigma, this can be simplified thanks to www.dbar-innovations.com and the software they offer that has training, statistical analysis, and complete project management. 713-436-6941The goal of Six Sigma is to increase profits by eliminating variability, defects and waste that undermine customer loyalty.

Six Sigma can be understood/perceived at three levels:

1. Metric: 3.4 Defects Per Million Opportunities. DPMO allows you to take complexity of product/process into account. Rule of thumb is to consider at least three opportunities for a physical part/component - one for form, one for fit and one for function, in absence of better considerations. Also you want to be Six Sigma in the Critical to Quality characteristics and not the whole unit/characteristics.
2. Methodology: DMAIC/DFSS structured problem solving roadmap and tools.
3. Philosophy: Reduce variation in your business and take customer-focused, data driven decisions.

Six Sigma is a methodology that provides businesses with the tools to improve the capability of their business processes. This increase in performance and decrease in process variation leads to defect reduction and vast improvement in profits, employee morale and quality of product.

-------

Six Sigma is a rigorous and a systematic methodology that utilizes information (management by facts) and statistical analysis to measure and improve a company's operational performance, practices and systems by identifying and preventing 'defects' in manufacturing and service-related processes in order to anticipate and exceed expectations of all stakeholders to accomplish effectiveness.

I use a software system that will talk to you with audio as it walks you through the entire methodology. I like to refer to it as my professor in a computer. It has all the templates and tools for statistical analysis, reads and reports the analysis and archives the report while providing a complete tracking system, provide training and best for a large team driving multiple projects. Too much more to say. Here is a pH.# for more details. 713-436-6941

CMMI or Six Sigma: Does It Matter Which Comes First?Bookmark This Page email This Page Format for Printing Cite This Article Submit an Article Read More Articles Related Tools & Articles

Connecting Six Sigma to CMMI Measurement and Analysis

Connections Between Design for Six Sigma and CMMI

Combining CMMI®, PSP, TSP and Six Sigma for Software

Discussion Forum "How can we integrate CMMI with Six Sigma? At which level of CMMI maturity would Six Sigma be most appropriate for integration? Should we implement CMMI first then follow by Six Sigma or otherwise? Is Six Sigma duplicating CMMI processes...?"

Contribute to this Discussion

B

y Karl D. Williams

An organization is getting into process improvement. Should it look at the Software Engineering Institute's capability maturity model integration (CMMI) first? Six Sigma first? Or both at the same time?

This dilemma has confronted many organizations during the last several years. The situation reminds me of a session at a symposium in 1984 at which both W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran were present at the symposium. Someone from the audience asked, "Should we follow Deming's teachings or those of Juran?" Deming, in his inimitable, gruff voice responded, "Pick either…just do something."

While the same question could arise about the use of CMMI or Six Sigma, there have been some interesting case studies during the last few years surrounding the order of choice. Since I have spent 80 percent of my time during the last 15 years with SEI CMMI and its predecessor, the SW-CMM®, one would expect a bias in favor the CMM/CMMI. However, I have personally been associated with three case studies demonstrating the benefits of looking at Six Sigma first…at least a little bit first.

All three scenarios involved organizations that were well into the Six Sigma expansion. There were Black Belts, Green Belts and Champions trained. All staff had some form of Six Sigma orientation, at least a four-hour overview.

The three organizations were:

• A medium-sized financial specialty company in the Midwest.
• An IT organization of a large educational supplier in the Southwest.
• A 120-person division of a multi-national communications vendor in the Southeast.

All had made significant inroads into Six Sigma's DMAIC roadmap before they ventured into the SEI CMM/CMMI world. Each was introduced to the CMMI via training and consulting. After about two months, a "mini-assessment" (Class C appraisal) was held. The results across the board were significantly different than the usual initial appraisal. A significant number of processes were already documented and used, as opposed to the usual blank stares when procedures/templates are requested during an appraisal. All three had results more typical of a second or third round of appraisals than the normal results. Especially noticeable was the difference in the quantitative-based process areas (e.g., measurement and analysis at maturity level 2 and the maturity levels 4 and 5 process areas covering quantitative process management and formal continuous improvement). In most initial Class C appraisals, no one bothers to look at maturity levels 4 and 5 process areas, sometimes not even maturity level 3. In all three cases, plans called for reviewing only maturity levels 2 and 3. As the appraisals progressed, the results were so startling that the maturity levels 4 and 5 also were investigated.

In each of the three cases, the following areas are presented for summary comparison:

Case 1 Results

• Measurement and analysis process area: All goals were satisfied with all practices implemented, and no improvement opportunities.
• Maturity level 4 process areas (2): All but two goals were satisfied. All practices largely implemented with three improvement opportunities.
• Maturity level 5 process areas (2): All but two goals satisfied. All practices largely/partially implemented with two improvement opportunities.
• Follow-up accomplishments: The group completed a maturity level 2 appraisal as planned for calendar year objectives. The maturity level 3 appraisal was successful nine months later. Plans were halted when the organization was acquired by a large multi-national organization.

Case 2 Results

• Measurement and analysis process area: All goals and practices compliant with one improvement opportunity.
• Maturity level 4 process areas (2): All but two goals compliant. All practices largely / partially compliant with five improvement opportunities.
• Maturity level 5 process areas (2): All but one goal compliant. All practices largely compliant with two improvement opportunities.
• Follow-up accomplishments: The group was appraised at level 3 three months later and is planning for a level 5 appraisal this quarter.

Case 3 Results

• Measurement and analysis process area: All goals and practices compliant with one minor improvement opportunity.
• Maturity level 4 process areas (2): All but one goal compliant. All practices largely compliant with three improvement opportunities.
• Maturity level 5 process areas (2): All goals and practices compliant.
• Follow-up accomplishments: The group was appraised at level 3 one month later and level 5 six months following that event.

The above results are phenomenal for first-time Class C appraisals. Upon further investigation, all stakeholders agreed that the Six Sigma tools and mindset had contributed greatly to such unparalleled results. Also documented were such shared characteristics as:

• All processes and procedures contained measurements, root cause analysis, and continuous improvement follow-up.
• All organizational results exceeded the data published by the SEI benchmarking activities.
• All levels of management and staff used the measurements on a daily basis.

More interestingly, all three of these case studies involved organizations whose Six Sigma training and focus had been strictly DMAIC. All three believe that their CMMI results as well as the organizational measurements would have been significantly better if their Six Sigma training had included the concepts in Design for Six Sigma, with more focus on understanding requirements and performance drivers versus the DMAIC fix-and-improve approach.

I am still a devout CMMI advocate. It is unmatched at providing the "whats" of process improvement and design. However, I am encouraged and impressed by the three cases investigated demonstrating the horsepower gained from a Six Sigma approach and mindset. I suspect that Drs. Deming and Juran would be pleased to see the gains they enabled via the tools and cultures of quality.

About the Author: Karl D. Williams is a principal consultant. He has trained more than 17,000 people in CMM, CMMI, Six Sigma and software skills. Mr. Willaims was a director at Motorola and, more recently, was a senior vice president of process design for Bank of America. He is a Master Black Belt, an SEI-authorized CMMI trainer and lead assessor. He has published more than 70 articles and authored a book entitled Continuous Improvement & Reengineering…A Better Way.