Maintaining quality standards in an organization high is an essential step towards making the company retain its popularity among the target customers and attract new audiences, thus, entering new markets. It should be noted, though, that the existing quality management frameworks have a tendency to wear their welcome out as the current global economy environment suggests a set of increasingly more rigid standards. Nevertheless, the Six Sigma approach still holds up as it helps pinpoint the crucial stages of the product development process. By outlining the steps to be taken in different areas of the firm’s operations, it embraces the entire framework thereof, whereas the eight steps mentioned by Goh (2010) do not address the decision-making stage.
The lack of understanding of the way in which Six Sigma operates is the main problem of the article. For instance, Goh specifies that the framework is not aimed at completing the objective correctly the first time, thus, triggering an unavoidable error: “Process owners will be encouraged and recognized when there is a hard-won improvement, rather than being obsessed with being ‘right’ in every step of the way” (Goh, 2010, p. 323). However, it is not the correctness of the choice that lies at the core of the above statement but, rather, the incentive to avoid the error of judgment.
On the one hand, the arguments raised by Goh do have a very valid point. For instance, the concept of “zero defect” (Goh, 2010, p. 322) mentioned by the author seems barely attainable and, therefore, not worth pursuing. On the other hand, a closer look at the framework that Six Sigma suggests will show that a complete absence of error is not what Six Sigma implies. The latter suggests that the absence of mistakes should be the ultimate goal that a company should strive toward (Pyzdek & Keller, 2014a). With the mindset that Goh’s approach creates, one is likely to set the quality standards rather low by default claiming that a perfect result cannot possibly be produced. Tre Six Sigma strategy, in its turn, contributes to a significant and consistent grow in the product quality as it constantly pushes the boundaries of product quality further, therefore, leading to a consistently good output.
Therefore, despite conveying quite legitimate ideas, Goh misses the point of the Six Sigma approach. As a result, the eight-step framework that the author suggests lacks the weight and the efficiency that Six Sigma has. The problem of the eight-step framework is not that it aims at subverting the Six Sigma approach, but that it fails to suggest the alternate one that will help maintain the product quality rates good and at the same time encourage organizations to strive for regular improvements (Pyzdek & Keller, 2014b).
Although incorporating a larger number of guidelines, the eight-system framework suggested by Goh is still inferior to the Six Sigma framework due to the lack of emphasis on the decision-making aspect and the overall lack of focus on various aspects of entrepreneurship’s functioning. Hough admittedly deep and insightful, the ideas listed by Goh still fail to embrace the range of issues that the Six Sigma framework can with it DMAIC approach. Therefore, though the reasonability of the eight concepts suggested by Goh is also rather high, for the time being, the Six Sigma strategy remains a doubtless champion in the quality management department.
Goh, T. N. (2010). Paradigm shifts in modern approach to quality excellence. Verslo Ir Teisės Aktualijos, 5(2), 320-347.
Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2014a). Building the responsive Six Sigma organization. The Six Sigma handbook (4th ed.) (pp. 3-62). New York City, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2014b). Project management using DMAIC and DMADV. The Six Sigma handbook (4th ed.) (pp. 213-244). New York City, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.