To achieve Six Sigma Quality, a process must produce no more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities.

An
"opportunity" is defined as a chance for nonconformance, or not meeting the required specifications. This means
we need to be nearly flawless in executing our key processes.

Six Sigma was originally developed as a set of practices designed to improve manufacturing processes and
eliminate defects, but its application was subsequently extended to other types of business processes as well.[2]
In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as anything that could lead to customer dissatisfaction.[1]

The particulars of the methodology were first formulated by Bill Smith at Motorola in 1986.[3] Six Sigma was
heavily inspired by six preceding decades of quality improvement methodologies such as quality control, TQM,
and Zero Defects, based on the work of pioneers such as Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Taguchi and
others.

Like its predecessors, Six Sigma asserts that –

• Continuous efforts to achieve stable and predictable process results (i.e. reduce process variation) are of
vital importance to business success.
• Manufacturing and business processes have characteristics that can be measured, analyzed, improved
and controlled.
• Achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the entire organization, particularly
from top-level management.

Features that set Six Sigma apart from previous quality improvement initiatives include –

• A clear focus on achieving measurable and quantifiable financial returns from any Six Sigma project.[1]
• An increased emphasis on strong and passionate management leadership and support.[1]
• A special infrastructure of "Champions," "Master Black Belts," "Black Belts," etc. to lead and
implement the Six Sigma approach.[1]
• A clear commitment to making decisions on the basis of verifiable data, rather than assumptions and
guesswork.[1]

The term "Six Sigma" is derived from a field of statistics known as process capability studies. Originally, it
referred to the ability of manufacturing processes to produce a very high proportion of output within
specification. Processes that operate with "six sigma quality" over the short term are assumed to produce long-
term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO).[4][5] Six Sigma's implicit goal is to
improve all processes to that level of quality or better.

Six Sigma is a registered service mark and trademark of Motorola, Inc.[6] Motorola has reported over US$17
billion in savings[7] from Six Sigma as of 2006.

Other early adopters of Six Sigma who achieved well-publicized success include Honeywell International
(previously known as Allied Signal) and General Electric, where the method was introduced by Jack Welch.[8]
By the late 1990s, about two-thirds of the Fortune 500 organizations had begun Six Sigma initiatives with the
aim of reducing costs and improving quality.[9]

In recent years, Six Sigma has sometimes been combined with lean manufacturing to yield a methodology
named Lean Six Sigma.
Graph of the normal distribution, which underlies the statistical assumptions of the Six Sigma model. The Greek
letter σ marks the distance on the horizontal axis between the mean, µ, and the curve's point of inflection. The
greater this distance is, the greater is the spread of values encountered. For the curve shown in red above, µ = 0
and σ = 1. The other curves illustrate different values of µ and σ.

[edit] Origin and meaning of the term "six sigma process"

The following outlines the statistical background of the term Six Sigma.

Sigma (the lower-case Greek letter σ) is used to represent the standard deviation (a measure of variation) of a
statistical population. The term "six sigma process" comes from the notion that if one has six standard
deviations between the mean of a process and the nearest specification limit, there will be practically no items
that fail to meet the specifications.[5] This is based on the calculation method employed in a process capability
study.

In a capability study, the number of standard deviations between the process mean and the nearest specification
limit is given in sigma units. As process standard deviation goes up, or the mean of the process moves away
from the center of the tolerance, fewer standard deviations will fit between the mean and the nearest
specification limit, decreasing the sigma number.[5]

[edit] The role of the 1.5 sigma shift

Experience has shown that in the long term, processes usually do not perform as well as they do in the short.[5]
As a result, the number of sigmas that will fit between the process mean and the nearest specification limit is
likely to drop over time, compared to an initial short-term study.[5] To account for this real-life increase in
process variation over time, an empirically-based 1.5 sigma shift is introduced into the calculation.[10][5]
According to this idea, a process that fits six sigmas between the process mean and the nearest specification
limit in a short-term study will in the long term only fit 4.5 sigmas – either because the process mean will move
over time, or because the long-term standard deviation of the process will be greater than that observed in the
short term, or both.[5]

Hence the widely accepted definition of a six sigma process is one that produces 3.4 defective parts per million
opportunities (DPMO).[11] This is based on the fact that a process that is normally distributed will have 3.4 parts
per million beyond a point that is 4.5 standard deviations above or below the mean (one-sided capability study).
[5]
So the 3.4 DPMO of a "Six Sigma" process in fact corresponds to 4.5 sigmas, namely 6 sigmas minus the 1.5
sigma shift introduced to account for long-term variation.[5] This is designed to prevent underestimation of the
defect levels likely to be encountered in real-life operation.[5]

[edit] Methodology
Six Sigma has two key methodologies: [9] DMAIC and DMADV, both inspired by Deming's Plan-Do-Check-
Act Cycle. DMAIC is used to improve an existing business process; DMADV is used to create new product or
process designs.[9]

[edit] DMAIC

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

• Define process improvement goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise
strategy.
• Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data.
• Analyze the data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the relationships are, and
attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered.
• Improve or optimize the process based upon data analysis using techniques like Design of Experiments.
• Control to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects. Set up pilot
runs to establish process capability, move on to production, set up control mechanisms and continuously
monitor the process.

[edit] DMADV

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

• Define design goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise strategy.
• Measure and identify CTQs (characteristics that are Critical To Quality), product capabilities,
production process capability, and risks.
• Analyze to develop and design alternatives, create a high-level design and evaluate design capability to
select the best design.
• Design details, optimize the design, and plan for design verification. This phase may require simulations.
• Verify the design, set up pilot runs, implement the production process and hand it over to the process
owners.

DMADV is also known as DFSS, an abbreviation of "Design For Six Sigma".[9]

[edit] Implementation roles

One of the key innovations of Six Sigma is the professionalizing of quality management functions. Prior to Six
Sigma, quality management in practice was largely relegated to the production floor and to statisticians in a
separate quality department. Six Sigma borrows martial arts ranking terminology to define a hierarchy (and
career path) that cuts across all business functions and a promotion path straight into the executive suite.

Six Sigma identifies several key roles for its successful implementation.[12]

• Executive Leadership includes the CEO and other members of top management. They are responsible for
setting up a vision for Six Sigma implementation. They also empower the other role holders with the
freedom and resources to explore new ideas for breakthrough improvements.
• Champions are responsible for Six Sigma implementation across the organization in an integrated
manner. The Executive Leadership draws them from upper management. Champions also act as mentors
to Black Belts.
• Master Black Belts, identified by champions, act as in-house coaches on Six Sigma. They devote 100%
of their time to Six Sigma. They assist champions and guide Black Belts and Green Belts. Apart from
statistical tasks, their time is spent on ensuring consistent application of Six Sigma across various
functions and departments.
 • Black Belts operate under Master Black Belts to apply Six Sigma methodology to specific projects. They
devote 100% of their time to Six Sigma. They primarily focus on Six Sigma project execution, whereas
Champions and Master Black Belts focus on identifying projects/functions for Six Sigma.
• Green Belts are the employees who take up Six Sigma implementation along with their other job
responsibilities. They operate under the guidance of Black Belts.

[edit] Quality management methods used in Six Sigma

Six Sigma makes use of a great number of established quality management methods that are also used outside of
Six Sigma. The following table shows an overview of the main methods used.

• 5 Whys • Failure mode and effects analysis

• Analysis of variance • General linear model
• ANOVA Gage R&R • Histograms
• Axiomatic design • Homogeneity of variance
• Apollo Root Cause Analysis ARCA • Pareto chart
• Business process mapping • Pick chart
• Catapult exercise on variability • Process capability
• Cause & effects diagram (also known as • Regression analysis
fishbone or Ishikawa diagram) • Run charts
• Chi-square test of independence and fits • SIPOC analysis (Suppliers, Inputs, Process,
• Control chart Outputs, Customers)
• Correlation • Stratification
• Cost-benefit analysis • Taguchi methods
• CTQ tree • Thought process map
• Customer survey through use of Enterprise
Feedback Management (EFM) systems • TRIZ

• Design of experiments

[edit] Software used for Six Sigma

Main article: List of Six Sigma software packages

[edit] List of Six Sigma companies

Main article: List of Six Sigma companies

[edit] Reception
Six Sigma has made a huge impact on industry and is widely employed as a business strategy for achieving and
sustaining operational and service excellence.[1] However, there have also been various criticisms of Six Sigma.

[edit] Lack of originality

Noted quality expert Joseph Juran has described Six Sigma as "a basic version of quality improvement," stating
that "[t]here is nothing new there. It includes what we used to call facilitators. They've adopted more flamboyant
terms, like belts with different colors. I think that concept has merit to set apart, to create specialists who can be
very helpful. Again, that's not a new idea. The American Society for Quality long ago established certificates,
such as for reliability engineers."[13]
[edit] Role of consultants

The use of "Black Belts" as itinerant change agents is controversial as it has created a cottage industry of
training and certification. Six Sigma is often oversold by consulting firms that claim expertise in Six Sigma
when they in fact only have a rudimentary understanding of the tools and techniques and the Six Sigma
approach.[1]

The expansion of the various "Belts" to include "Green Belts," "Master Black Belts" and "Gold Belts" is
commonly seen as a parallel to the various "belt factories" that exist in martial arts.[citation needed]

[edit] Studies that indicate negative effects caused by Six Sigma

A Fortune article stated that "of 58 large companies that have announced Six Sigma programs, 91 percent have
trailed the S&P 500 since." The statement is attributed to "an analysis by Charles Holland of consulting firm
Qualpro (which espouses a competing quality-improvement process)."[14] The gist of the article is that Six Sigma
is effective at what it is intended to do, but that it is "narrowly designed to fix an existing process" and does not
help in "coming up with new products or disruptive technologies." Many of these claims have been argued as
being in error or ill-informed.[15][16]

A Business Week article says that James McNerney's introduction of Six Sigma at 3M may have had the effect
of stifling creativity. It cites two Wharton School professors who say that Six Sigma leads to incremental
innovation at the expense of blue-sky work.[17]

[edit] Based on arbitrary standards

While 3.4 defects per million opportunities might work well for certain products/processes, it might not be ideal
or cost-effective for others. A pacemaker might need higher standards, for example, whereas a direct mail
advertising campaign might need lower ones. The basis and justification for choosing 6 as the number of
standard deviations is not clearly explained.[18] In addition, the Six Sigma model assumes that the process data
always conform to the normal distribution. The calculation of defect rates for situations where the normal
distribution model does not apply is not properly addressed in the current Six Sigma literature.[1]

[edit] Criticism of the 1.5 sigma shift

Because of its arbitrary nature, the 1.5 sigma shift has been dismissed as "goofy" by the statistician Donald J.
Wheeler.[19] Its universal applicability is seen as doubtful.[1]

The 1.5 sigma shift has also been contentious because it results in stated "sigma levels" that reflect short-term
rather than long-term performance: a process that has long-term defect levels corresponding to 4.5 sigma
performance is, by Six Sigma convention, described as a "6 sigma process."[5][20] The accepted Six Sigma
scoring system thus cannot be equated to actual normal distribution probabilities for the stated number of
standard deviations, and this has been a key bone of contention about how Six Sigma measures are defined.[20]
The fact that it is rarely explained that a "6 sigma" process will have long-term defect rates corresponding to 4.5
sigma performance rather than actual 6 sigma performance has led several commentators to express the opinion
that Six Sigma is a confidence trick.[5]
Six Sigma

Status

Complete

Note

Purpose and Origin

Six Sigma (6 ) is a business-driven, multi-faceted approach to process improvement, reduced costs, and increased
profits. With a fundamental principle to improve customer satisfaction by reducing defects, its ultimate performance
target is virtually defect-free processes and products (3.4 or fewer defective parts per million (ppm)). The Six Sigma
methodology, consisting of the steps "Define - Measure - Analyze - Improve - Control," is the roadmap to achieving this
goal. Within this improvement framework, it is the responsibility of the improvement team to identify the process, the
definition of defect, and the corresponding measurements. This degree of flexibility enables the Six Sigma method,
along with its toolkit, to easily integrate with existing models of software process implementation.

Six Sigma originated at Motorola in the early 1980s in response to a CEO-driven challenge to achieve tenfold reduction
in product-failure levels in five years. Meeting this challenge required swift and accurate root-cause analysis and
correction. In the mid-1990s, Motorola divulged the details of their quality improvement framework, which has since
been adopted by several large manufacturing companies. [Harry 00, Arnold 99, Harrold 99 ]

Technical Detail

The primary goal of Six Sigma is to improve customer satisfaction, and thereby profitability, by reducing and eliminating
defects. Defects may be related to any aspect of customer satisfaction: high product quality, schedule adherence, cost
minimization. Underlying this goal is the Taguchi Loss Function [Pyzdek 01], which shows that increasing defects leads
to increased customer dissatisfaction and financial loss. Common Six Sigma metrics include defect rate (parts per
million or ppm), sigma level, process capability indices, defects per unit, and yield. Many Six Sigma metrics can be
mathematically related to the others.

The Six Sigma drive for defect reduction, process improvement and customer satisfaction is based on the "statistical
thinking" paradigm [ASQ 00], [ASA 01]:

• Everything is a process
• All processes have inherent variability
• Data is used to understand the variability and drive process improvement decisions

As the roadmap for actualizing the statistical thinking paradigm, the key steps in the Six Sigma improvement framework
are Define - Measure - Analyze - Improve - Control (see Figure 1). Six Sigma distinguishes itself from other quality
improvement programs immediately in the "Define" step. When a specific Six Sigma project is launched, the customer
satisfaction goals have likely been established and decomposed into subgoals such as cycle time reduction, cost
reduction, or defect reduction. (This may have been done using the Six Sigma methodology at a
business/organizational level.) The Define stage for the specific project calls for baselining and benchmarking the
process to be improved, decomposing the process into manageable sub-processes, further specifying goals/sub-goals
and establishing infrastructure to accomplish the goals. It also includes an assessment of the cultural/organizational
change that might be needed for success.

Once an effort or project is defined, the team methodically proceeds through Measurement, Analysis, Improvement, and
Control steps. A Six Sigma improvement team is responsible for identifying relevant metrics based on engineering
principles and models. With data/information in hand, the team then proceeds to evaluate the data/information for
trends, patterns, causal relationships and "root cause," etc. If needed, special experiments and modeling may be done
to confirm hypothesized relationships or to understand the extent of leverage of factors; but many improvement projects
may be accomplished with the most basic statistical and non-statistical tools. It is often necessary to iterate through the
Measure-Analyze-Improve steps. When the target level of performance is achieved, control measures are then
established to sustain performance. A partial list of specific tools to support each of these steps is shown in Figure 1.

Note:
Many tools can be effectively used in multiple steps of the framework.
Tools that are not particularly relevant to software applications have
not been included in this list.

Figure 1: Six Sigma Improvement Framework and Toolkit

An important consideration throughout all the Six Sigma steps is to distinguish which process substeps significantly
contribute to the end result. The defect rate of the process, service or final product is likely more sensitive to some
factors than others. The analysis phase of Six Sigma can help identify the extent of improvement needed in each
substep in order to achieve the target in the final product. It is important to remain mindful that six sigma performance
(in terms of the ppm metric) is not required for every aspect of every process, product and service. It is the goal only
where it quantitatively drives (i.e, is a significant "control knob" for) the end result of customer satisfaction and
profitability.

The current average industry runs at four sigma, which corresponds to 6210 defects per million opportunities.
Depending on the exact definition of "defect" in payroll processing, for example, this sigma level could be interpreted as
6 out of every 1000 paychecks having an error. As "four sigma" is the average current performance, there are industry
sectors running above and below this value. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) phone-in tax advice, for instance, runs at
roughly two sigma, which corresponds to 308,537 errors per million opportunities. Again, depending on the exact
definition of defect, this could be interpreted as 30 out of 100 phone calls resulting in erroneous tax advice. ("Two
Sigma" performance is where many noncompetitive companies run.) On the other extreme, domestic (U.S.) airline flight
fatality rates run at better than six sigma, which could be interpreted as fewer than 3.4 fatalities per million passengers -
that is, fewer than 0.00034 fatalities per 100 passengers [Harry 00], [Bylinsky 98], [Harrold 99].

As just noted, flight fatality rates are "better than six sigma," where "six sigma" denotes the actual performance level
rather than a reference to the overall combination of philosophy, metric, and improvement framework. Because
customer demands will likely drive different performance expectations, it is useful to understand the mathematical origin
of the measure and the term "six-sigma process." Conceptually, the sigma level of a process or product is where its
customer-driven specifications intersect with its distribution. A centered six-sigma process has a normal distribution with
mean=target and specifications placed 6 standard deviations to either side of the mean. At this point, the portions of the
distribution that are beyond the specifications contain 0.002 ppm of the data (0.001 on each side). Practice has shown
that most manufacturing processes experience a shift (due to drift over time) of 1.5 standard deviations so that the
mean no longer equals target. When this happens in a six-sigma process, a larger portion of the distribution now
extends beyond the specification limits: 3.4 ppm.

Figure 2 depicts a 1.5 -shifted distribution with "6 " annotations. In manufacturing, this shift results from things such
as mechanical wear over time and causes the six-sigma defect rate to become 3.4 ppm. The magnitude of the shift may
vary, but empirical evidence indicates that 1.5 is about average. Does this shift exist in the software process? While it
will take time to build sufficient data repositories to verify this assumption within the software and systems sector, it is
reasonable to presume that there are factors that would contribute to such a shift. Possible examples are declining
procedural adherence over time, learning curve, and constantly changing tools and technologies (hardware and
software).

Assumptions:

• Normal Distribution
• Process Mean Shift of 1.5 from Nominal is Likely
• Process Mean and Standard Deviation are known
• Defects are randomly distributed throughout units
• Parts and Process Steps are Independent

• For this discussion, original nominal value = target

Key

= standard deviation
µ = center of the distribution
(shifted 1.5 from its original , on-target location)
+/-3 & +/-6 show the specifications relative to the original target
Figure 2: Six Sigma Process with Mean Shifted from Nominal by 1. 5

Usage Considerations

In the software and systems field, Six Sigma may be leveraged differently based on the state of the business. In an
organization needing process consistency, Six Sigma can help promote the establishment of a process. For an
organization striving to streamline their existing processes, Six Sigma can be used as a refinement mechanism.

In organizations at CMM® level 1-3, "defect free" may seem an overwhelming stretch. Accordingly, an effective
approach would be to use the improvement framework ('Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control') as a roadmap
toward intermediate defect reduction goals. Level 1 and 2 organizations may find that adopting the Six Sigma
philosophy and framework reinforces their efforts to launch measurement practices; whereas Level 3 organizations may
be able to begin immediate use of the framework. As organizations mature to Level 4 and 5, which implies an ability to
leverage established measurement practices, accomplishment of true "six sigma" performance (as defined by ppm
defect rates) becomes a relevant goal.

Many techniques in the Six Sigma toolkit are directly applicable to software and are already in use in the software
industry. For instance, "Voice of the Client" and "Quality Function Deployment" are useful for developing customer
requirements (and are relevant measures). There are numerous charting/calculation techniques that can be used to
scrutinize cost, schedule, and quality (project-level and personal-level) data as a project proceeds. And, for technical
development, there are quantitative methods for risk analysis and concept/design selection. The strength of "Six Sigma"
comes from consciously and methodically deploying these tools in a way that achieves (directly or indirectly) customer
satisfaction.

As with manufacturing, it is likely that Six Sigma applications in software will reach beyond "improvement of current
processes/products" and extend to "design of new processes/products." Named "Design for Six Sigma" (DFSS), this
extension heavily utilizes tools for customer requirements, risk analysis, design decision-making and inventive problem
solving. In the software world, it would also heavily leverage re-use libraries that consist of robustly designed software.
Maturity

Six Sigma is rooted in fundamental statistical and business theory; consequently, the concepts and philosophy are very
mature. Applications of Six Sigma methods in manufacturing, following on the heels of many quality improvement
programs, are likewise mature. Applications of Six Sigma methods in software development and other 'upstream' (from
manufacturing) processes are emerging.

Costs and Limitations

Institutionalizing Six Sigma into the fabric of a corporate culture can require significant investment in training and
infrastructure. There are typically three different levels of expertise cited by companies: Green Belt, Black Belt
Practitioner, Master Black Belt. Each level has increasingly greater mastery of the skill set. Roles and responsibilities
also grow from each level to the next, with Black Belt Practitioners often in team/project leadership roles and Master
Black Belts often in mentoring/teaching roles. The infrastructure needed to support the Six Sigma environment varies.
Some companies organize their trained Green/Black Belts into a central support organization. Others deploy
Green/Black Belts into organizations based on project needs and rely on communities of practice to maintain cohesion.

Alternatives

In past years, there have been many instances and evolutions of quality improvement programs. Scrutiny of the
programs will show much similarity and also clear distinctions between such programs and Six Sigma. Similarities
include common tools and methods, concepts of continuous improvement, and even analogous steps in the
improvement framework. Differences have been articulated as follows:

• Six Sigma speaks the language of business. It specifically addresses the concept of making the business as
profitable as possible.
• In Six Sigma, quality is not pursued independently from business goals. Time and resources are not spent
improving something that is not a lever for improving customer satisfaction.
• Six Sigma focuses on achieving tangible results.
• Six Sigma does not include specific integration of ISO900 or Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award criteria.
• Six Sigma uses an infrastructure of highly trained employees from many sectors of the company (not just the
Quality Department). These employees are typically viewed as internal change agents.
• Six Sigma raises the expectation from 3-sigma performance to 6-sigma. Yet, it does not promote "Zero Defects"
which many people dismiss as "impossible."

Sources: [Pyzdek 2-01, Marash 99, Harry 00]

Complementary Technologies

It is difficult to concisely describe the ways in which Six Sigma may be interwoven with other initiatives (or vice versa).
The following paragraphs broadly capture some of the possible interrelationships between initiatives.

Six Sigma and improvement approaches such as CMM‚, CMMISM, PSPSM/TSPSM are complementary and mutually
supportive. Depending on current organizational, project or individual circumstances, Six Sigma could be an enabler to
launch CMM®, CMMISM, PSPSM, or TSPSM. Or, it could be a refinement toolkit/methodology within these initiatives. For
instance, it might be used to select highest priority Process Areas within CMMISM or to select highest leverage metrics
within PSPSM.

Examination of the Goal-Question-Metric (GQM), Initiating-Diagnosing-Establishing-Acting-Leveraging (IDEALSM), and

Practical Software Measurement (PSM) paradigms, likewise, shows compatibility and consistency with Six Sigma.
GQ(I)M meshes well with the Define-Measure steps of Six Sigma. IDEAL and Six Sigma share many common features,
with IDEALSM being slightly more focused on change management and organizational issues and Six Sigma being more
focused on tactical, data-driven analysis and decision making. PSM provides a software-tailored approach to
measurement that may well serve the Six Sigma improvement framework.
Correct Method To Count Six Sigma Opportunities
by Gary Cone

One Quality school of thought suggests opportunities are counted using a definition that includes only those
things that are tested or inspected. However, by placing the emphasis on what is tested and inspected, this
definition promotes the idea of more test and more inspection as a method of improving the sigma level. This
would seem contrary to the objective of trying to make our processes more efficient.

The best manufacturers in the world do very little test and inspection. Why? They don't need to. The best
manufacturers in the world also have test or inspection time limited by the line flow. So now in order to
embrace Six Sigma, these companies would have to add test and add inspection? I don't think so.

What is wrong with the focus on test and inspection for counting opportunities?

1. The focus is on non-value added activities.

2. The more we are sure of our quality, the less we will test and inspect potentially worsening the sigma level. At its
extreme the denominator of the DPMO equation is 0, which means we have an undefined sigma level.
3. We could disrupt the flow of work trying to comply with this definition.None of this sounds right, does it?

Is it opportunity for defects or opportunity to do things right?

At the detail level of a process, one useful tool for determining failures and defects is called a Failure
Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). FMEA is a tool that helps identify every possible failure mode of a
process or product to determine its effect on other sub-items and on the required function of the product
or process. The number of ways a product could have a defect is large and could approach infinity
especially if you start considering handling, misprocessing, etc.

For an alternative perspective, let's look at the objectives of Lean Enterprise. According to the principles
of lean, processes should use the least amount of resources needed to transform a good or service into
something the customer wants. I would argue that the definition of a defect in this context is any use of
resource over the minimal required to do the job. So spending ten extra seconds at a station is a defect.
Handling something twice when once will do is a defect. Having a queue of parts when no queue is
necessary is a defect. You get the picture.

Another aspect of the Lean Enterprise theory is the idea that there should be synergy between of all of the goals
of the organization. Lean Enterprise is trying to minimize non-value added activities. So there is a whole
category of things that cannot be viewed as opportunities if we are seeking synergy. This would include test,
inspection, transport, storage, and rework (including all of those rework steps we think of as process). What we
are left with, if we expect Lean Enterprise and Six Sigma to be viewed as complementary (they are - right?), are
value added activities - a focus on the opportunity to do things right, not the things that can go wrong.
What Is Value Added With Respect To Opportunity Counting?
There are three simple rules:

1. The product or service is changed by the process (automatically excludes test and inspection).
2. The change must be of value to the customer.
3. Right first time (no extra credit for redoing - this distinction is important for things like deburring operations - just
because your processing throws a burr doesn't mean you get credit for it).

So let's review. Focusing on what you test and inspect or focusing on what can go wrong drives
counterproductive behaviors. Focusing on all value added transformations, at the detail level, provides
the best framework for counting opportunities.

Therefore, DPMO should be expressed as -

DPMO = (total defects) / (total value-added transformations) * 106

Where, defects are the consumption of resources beyond the minimum required to accomplish the work,
and value-added transformations are changes to a good or service that moves it toward the expectation of
the customer (internal or external)

What is an "opportunity"?

I've trained improvement teams, team leaders, and black belts for one of the aforementioned
companies in their 6σ metrics module. Once they get through the distinction between defects vs.
defectives and attribute vs. variable data the greatest difficulty that the trainees encounter is in
determining what constitutes an opportunity for a defect. Obviously, by increasing the number
of opportunities (the denominator of dpmo), you can improve the metric, particularly if you
include opportunities that are not important to customers and consequently are not routinely
checked for conformance, thereby allowing their defects to go uncounted.

This weakness can be overcome (but seldom is in practice) by applying an objective weighting
for defect severity in counting both opportunities and actual defects. For example, critical
defects, ones that make the output unusable by the customer, get a weighting of one while
inconsequential defects get a weighting of zero. Cosmetic defects or ones that can be corrected
or compensated for have values in between, depending on the relative cost of correction or their
likely impact on the customer's repurchase decision. A similar approach is taken in Failure Mode
and Effect Analysis (FMEA) where improvement priorities are set based on a combination of
frequency of occurrence, severity and detectability of candidate failure modes. I understand that
the TI flavor of 6σ does include this type of logic. Where should the weightings come from? The
customer of the process, of course (but, more about this in a future installment in this series, if
there's sufficient interest). Current practice usually leaves the choice of what constitutes an
opportunity for a defect as a subjective, not objective decision. This has proven to be a poor
standard for good metrics.
 DPO - Defects per opportunity
Calculation used in Six Sigma and DFSS, (Design for Six Sigma). The total number of
possible errors or defects that could be counted in a process or service. The
formula uses the number of defects and the number of units times the DO,(defect
opportunities).

Number of defects
DPO =
Number of units x Number of opportunities

One way to calculate PPM you would use one, (1), as the number of opportunities and
then use the DPMO, (Defects per Million Opportunities), formula to calculate PPM. (see
the note on the DPMO page)

We have a free and commercial product to aid you in these calculations. See our free
DPO-DPMO calculator and the commercial DPO-DPMO calculator for more details

DO - Defect opportunity
Typically used in six sigma, a kind of possible defect of a unit or throughput (input/output)
that is important to the customer requirements or specification, at any place in a process,
procedure, or service where a defect could occur. This could also be called part steps.

Example, a form with 10 questions would have at least 10 opportunities for a defect. If one
of the 10 questions is a multiple choice, like A, B, C, and D, then the DO calculation could
be 13. 10 - 1(for the one multiple choice) + 4 (one for each choice of the multiple choice
question)

Any place or anytime a defect could occur. This number may have to be lowered for
practical reasons in order to be used properly. For example, if the probability is extremely
small that the defect could occur, then it should not be used unless process improvements
have eliminated all other types of defect opportunities.

Also see our free software to help in various calculations used with defect opportunities as
well as DPMO, (Defects per Million Opportunities), and DPO, (Defects per Opportunity).
Before we go ahead, lets define two terms:

• A Six Sigma defect is defined as anything outside of customer specifications.

• A Six Sigma opportunity is the total quantity of chances for a defect.

Here are various formulae to measure different metrics related to Six Sigma Defects

Defects Per Unit - DPU

Total Number of Defects

DPU = ------------------------
Total number of Product Units

The probability of getting 'r' defects in a sample having a given dpu rate can be predicted with the Poisson Distribution.

Total Opportunities - TO

TO = Total number of Product Units x Opportunities

Defects Per Opportunity - DPO

Total Number of Defects

DPO = ------------------------
Total Opportunity

Defects Per Million Opportunities - DPMO

DPMO = DPO x 1,000,000

Defects Per Million Opportunities or DPMO can be then converted to sigma values using Yield to Sigma Conversion Table given in Six Sigma - Measure
Phase.

According to the conversion table

6 Sigma = 3.4 DPMO

How to find your Sigma Level

• Clearly define the customer's explicit requirements.

• Count the number of defects that occur.
•
• Determine the yield-- percentage of items without defects.
• Use the conversion chart to determine DPMO and Sigma Level.

Simplified Sigma Conversion Table

If your yield is: Your DPMO is: Your Sigma is:

30.9% 690,000 1.0

62.9% 308,000 2.0
93.3 66,800 3.0
99.4 6,210 4.0
99.98 320 5.0
99.9997 3.4 6.0
As stated above, here Number for defects is total number of defects found, Number of Units is the number of units produced
and number of opportunities means the number of ways to generate defects.

For example: The food ordering delivery project team examines 50 deliveries and finds out the following:

• Delivery is not on time (13)

• Ordered food is not according to the order (3)
• Food is not fresh (0)

So now DPMO will be as follows:

13 + 3
DPMO = ----------- x 1,000,000 = 106,666.7
50 x 3

According to the Yield to Sigma Conversion Table given below 106,666.7 defects per million opportunities is equivalent to a
sigma performance of between 2.7 and 2.8.

This is the method used for measuring results as we proceed through a project. This beginning point enables us to locate the
cause and effect of those processes and to seek defect point so that the procedure can be improved.

Yield to Sigma Conversion Table

Yield % Sigma Defects Per Million Opportunities

99.9997 6.00 3.4
99.9995 5.92 5
99.9992 5.81 8
99.9990 5.76 10
99.9980 5.61 20
99.9970 5.51 30
99.9960 5.44 40
99.9930 5.31 70
99.9900 5.22 100
99.9850 5.12 150
99.9770 5.00 230
99.9670 4.91 330
99.9520 4.80 480
99.9320 4.70 680
99.9040 4.60 960
99.8650 4.50 1350
99.8140 4.40 1860
99.7450 4.30 2550
99.6540 4.20 3460
99.5340 4.10 4660
99.3790 4.00 6210
99.1810 3.90 8190
98.9300 3.80 10700
98.6100 3.70 13900
98.2200 3.60 17800
97.7300 3.50 22700
97.1300 3.40 28700
96.4100 3.30 35900
95.5400 3.20 44600
94.5200 3.10 54800
93.3200 3.00 66800
91.9200 2.90 80800
90.3200 2.80 96800
88.5000 2.70 115000
86.5000 2.60 135000
84.2000 2.50 158000
81.6000 2.40 184000
78.8000 2.30 212000
75.8000 2.20 242000
72.6000 2.10 274000
69.2000 2.00 308000
65.6000 1.90 344000
61.8000 1.80 382000
58.0000 1.70 420000
54.0000 1.60 460000
50.0000 1.50 500000
46.0000 1.40 540000
43.0000 1.32 570000
39.0000 1.22 610000
35.0000 1.11 650000
31.0000 1.00 690000
28.0000 0.92 720000
25.0000 0.83 750000
22.0000 0.73 780000
19.0000 0.62 810000
16.0000 0.51 840000
14.0000 0.42 860000
12.0000 0.33 880000
10.0000 0.22 900000
8.0000 0.09 920000
What exactly is Six Sigma?
In its most fundamental form, Six Sigma is a measure of the number of defects in a specific process or operation
-- for example, a manufacturing process used to make a specific part. In Six Sigma, you're not worried about
defective parts as a whole, but something called defect opportunities. A defect opportunity takes into account
three important variables:

1. All of the different defects that occur on an assembled part

2. The number of places on that part where the defects can occur
3. And every production step that could cause one or more of the defects on the part
As an example, let's say you're manufacturing small metal cubes. Two major defects are typically found on the cubes: a
crack and a dent. The crack is one defect; the dent is a second. Now let's say those defects are found only on three of the
cube's six faces. Finally, let's assume there are three steps in the manufacturing process where those defects are typically
introduced.

Clearly, there are several opportunities for a defect to occur. To calculate how many, you simply multiply: 2 x 3 x 3, for a
total of 18 opportunities. Now, if you see cracks or dents in 5 percent of the metal cubes that come off the production line,
the number of defects per opportunity is .00278 (.05 divided by 18). To find the number of defects per thousand
opportunities, you multiply .00278 by 1,000 to get 2.78.

Motorola engineers decided that the defects-per-thousand metric wasn't sensitive enough for their new Six Sigma
initiative. They decided that defects per million opportunities (DPMO) eliminated errors due to small sample size and
made for a more accurate determination of quality. To find the number of defects per million opportunities in our example
above, you multiply .00278 by 1,000,000 to get 2,780 DPMO.

On the next page, we'll discuss the scale that Motorola came up with to evaluate quality based on DPMO numbers.