Page 34 - Six Sigma Demystified

Chapter 1 d e p loy m e n t s t r at e g y 15

• Improve the process
• Control the process for sustained improvement

Readers familiar with quality improvement methods will be reminded of
Shewhart’s plan- do- check- act (PDCA) and Deming’s plan- do- study- act
(PDSA). These methods are quite similar in their approach, employing cycles
of improvement. Once the final step is completed, a new cycle may begin for
an additional level of improvement. The key differences between DMAIC and
PDSA/PDCA include the prescribed use of specific tools and techniques, par-
ticularly in the measure, analyze, and improve stages, as well as the project
sponsorship (define stage) and detailed control plans (control stage). DMAIC
seeks to address the shortcomings in PDSA/PDCA effectively, at least as PDSA/
PDCA were often practiced, if not defined.
Motorola used the MAIC (measure, analyze, improve, control) acronym.
General Electric and Allied Signal used DMAIC, which has become more of
the standard. General Electric also has varied the methodology for use in prod-
uct design areas, calling it DMADV, where the second D stands for design and
the V for verify. This acronym is used in conjunction with the DFSS (design for
Six Sigma) nomenclature. The objectives and approach of the design stage are
remarkably similar to those of the improve stage, as is verify to control, making
the differences between DMADV and DMAIC subtle. Some companies choose
to call it DMAIC in either case for ease of implementation.
Some consultants brand the methodology by adding even more steps. Harry
and Schroeder added recognize to the front and standardize and integrate to
the end, referring to the product as their “breakthrough strategy,” which takes
its name from Juran’s concept of breakthrough developed years earlier to

describe methods for achieving orders- of- magnitude improvements in quality.
A review of Harry and Schroeder’s definitions of these additional terms shows
similarity to the objectives described for each stage of DMAIC in Part 2 of this
book. A casual review of Six Sigma practitioners found the DMAIC methodol-
ogy to be the one used most commonly. Apparently everyone agrees on what
essentially will be done; they just don’t agree on what to call it!
Putting these semantics aside, the importance of DMAIC is in its structured
approach. This discipline ensures that Six Sigma projects are clearly defined
and implemented and that results are standardized in the daily operations.
The DMAIC methodology should be applied from the leadership levels of
the organization all the way down to the process level. Whether a project begins
at the business level or the process level, the methodology is the same. DMAIC