At exactly two years ago, ISO introduced ISO 13053:2011 entitled " Quantitative Methods in Process Improvement – Six Sigma "
It is about the application of Six Sigma to improve existing processes with 2 parts:
Part 1: DMAIC methodology, describes the five-phased methodology DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control), and recommends best practice, including on the Roles, Expertise and Training of personnel involved in such projects.
Part 2: Tools and Techniques, describes Tools and Techniques, illustrated by fact sheets, to be used at each phase of the DMAIC approach.
Some of you might disagree, but pardon my honest and blunt opinion.
The first time I have read about ISO developing a Six Sigma standard, I laughed. Really hard. Why? Because it was like Samsung, planning to sell iPhone-inside-a-Samsung-Box to its customers. It was like re-packaging an already finished good and telling everyone that this is 'the' original. Nothing more like selling pirated DVDs and telling everyone to buy only from me, because it is only I that sells the real deal.
We all know that ISO, its certifying bodies and consultants are earning a lot to sell the standard (print), consulting and auditing services to companies. ISO, in my opinion, wants to take a piece of the Six Sigma pie, even to the point of monopolizing it since they can now say that they own "the" standard.
They are trying to exploit Six Sigma's weakness of not having a central certifying body. It is indeed ironic, that a discipline that aims to reduce variations does not have a standard way of implementing the initiative and issuing Six Sigma certifications.
Why did ISO thought about it in the first place? Was it because ISO's revenues were declining and want to enter new market? To me, it seems like a desperate move.
So did it sell? Did companies adopt ISO 13053 to roll-out Six Sigma? Try to ask around, and you'll get blank stares.
It is about the application of Six Sigma to improve existing processes with 2 parts:
Part 1: DMAIC methodology, describes the five-phased methodology DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control), and recommends best practice, including on the Roles, Expertise and Training of personnel involved in such projects.
Part 2: Tools and Techniques, describes Tools and Techniques, illustrated by fact sheets, to be used at each phase of the DMAIC approach.
Some of you might disagree, but pardon my honest and blunt opinion.
The first time I have read about ISO developing a Six Sigma standard, I laughed. Really hard. Why? Because it was like Samsung, planning to sell iPhone-inside-a-Samsung-Box to its customers. It was like re-packaging an already finished good and telling everyone that this is 'the' original. Nothing more like selling pirated DVDs and telling everyone to buy only from me, because it is only I that sells the real deal.
We all know that ISO, its certifying bodies and consultants are earning a lot to sell the standard (print), consulting and auditing services to companies. ISO, in my opinion, wants to take a piece of the Six Sigma pie, even to the point of monopolizing it since they can now say that they own "the" standard.
They are trying to exploit Six Sigma's weakness of not having a central certifying body. It is indeed ironic, that a discipline that aims to reduce variations does not have a standard way of implementing the initiative and issuing Six Sigma certifications.
Why did ISO thought about it in the first place? Was it because ISO's revenues were declining and want to enter new market? To me, it seems like a desperate move.
So did it sell? Did companies adopt ISO 13053 to roll-out Six Sigma? Try to ask around, and you'll get blank stares.
