Talk:Design for Six Sigma/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why separation from Six Sigma?
What makes this separate from Six Sigma? Would it not gain from the context, if it were a subsection there? --Wetman 20:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- this "article" does not explain what the "process" is. Looks like an industy buzzword to me: merely a synonem for "focus on what the customer wants", as if this were some kind of new idea. Uncle Ed 01:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Doubletalk and nonsense
I'm keen on quality, and I use repeatable processes, but I can't make head nor tails of the following:
Design for six sigma (DFSS) is a process used in the development of new products or services to ensure that they can be manufactured, or can operate, at Six Sigma levels. The core of the process is understanding the customer requirements. This is achieved by using a number of tools such as the "house of quality". Other statistical tools, similar to those used in traditional six sigma processes, are used to ensure that the product is designed in a way that satisfies the customer's requirements with few (i.e. six sigma) defects.
Research documented the median value of hard financial benefits from a Six Sigma DFSS (one methodology under the umbrella of DFSS is DMADV) project (across all industries and company sizes) to be $200,000. Companies with less than $100 million in revenue see dollar results about 75% less, where as companies with revenue of more than $1 billion see dollar results more than 100% higher.
See:kkdie
Links
- Design for Six Sigma roadmap - a web page with a generic flowchart on it
Redirection
So I'm just going to redirect the whole thing to Six Sigma, which is buzzword headquarters for this, or, slogan / concept / sales pitch. Uncle Ed 01:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)