Six Sigma

Can we develop theory around Six Sigma?

Should we care?

Abstract 003-0169

Suzanne de Treville

HEC – University of Lausanne

Norman M. Edelson

Norm Edelson Manufacturing Improvement Co.

Chicago, IL

Anilkumar N. Kharkar

Consultant in Manufacturing Process Improvement

Horseheads, NY

Benjamin Avanzi

HEC – University of Lausanne

Abstract

003-0169

Organizational practices related to Six Sigma are believed to have resulted in improved organizational outcomes. The academic community, however, continues to lack understanding of the constructs and causal relationships underlying Six Sigma (with the exception of Linderman et al., 2003, who examined Six Sigma from the perspective of goal theory), hence is buffeted by anecdotal experience reported from practice. We evaluate Six Sigma through the lens of literature on theory development (Bacharach, 1989; Osigweh, 1989; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Van de Ven, 1989; Whetten, 1989) to explain why the Six Sigma constructs, assumptions, and causal relationships are inconsistent with theory development principles. The factors that make Six Sigma inadequate as a theory give insight into the building blocks needed to provide a working theory of Six Sigma’s most essential element: process consistency. Without these building blocks, theory and knowledge development about process consistency—and quality management in general—will remain ad hoc, irrefutable, and piecemeal.

1 Introduction

Knowledge development requires a solid foundation of theory. Without theory, we do not know what we know, we do not know that we do not know, and we cannot organize what we learn. Therefore, criteria concerning theory development should serve as a “gold standard” for how we in the Operations Management (OM) community choose and define our research questions, and how we interpret and structure our research around what we observe in practice (for a discussion of the need for increased emphasis on theory development in the OM field,...