A REVIEW OF SIX-SIGMA, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION (ISO), AND THE CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (CMM)

Abstract

This paper reviews Six-Sigma and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as process improvement tools for management. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is also discussed as a way for organizations to address specific business needs. Given this basis of the CMM, organizations may greatly improve their organizational environments and processes through evolution from a setting where few processes exist to a setting in which processes are continuously monitored and systematically improved. Reliance upon the individual heroics of personnel may evolve to manifest a strong sense of teamwork that exists across the organization. Caputo (1996) states that CMM implementation is only a predictor of performance, not a limit to performance within organizational environments. Finally, environments that employ risky technological environments and ad hoc data collection methodologies may evolve into settings where proactive technological embellishment and defined data analysis are manifested to generate process improvements.

Headnote

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews Six-Sigma and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as process improvement tools for management. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is also discussed as a way for organizations to address specific business needs.

INTRODUCTION

Davis, Aquilano and Chase (1999) define Six-Sigma as being a quality improvement program developed by Motorola to reduce process variation to 50 percent of design tolerance. Brecker (2001) states that Six-Sigma was intended to improve the quality of processes that are already under control where major special causes of process problems have been removed. With respect to the quantitative aspects of these Six-Sigma attributes, Kan (1995) states that process improvement and process variation are inherent components of the Six-Sigma concept. From a product engineering perspective, Kan notes that if failure tolerance is incorporated into the design of the product, that means it is easier to meet the specifications of the finished product, and therefore, easier to achieve Six-Sigma quality.

Given the nature of the Six-Sigma concept, both Brecker (2001) and Eckes (2001) note that it may be implemented via the following methodology:

LEGISLATION

Roetzheim (2000) states that effective process management is not without legal considerations. Associated personal liability issues may be contemplated with respect to owners, directors, and officers of a company that fails to protect the interests of the shareholders in instances where the behavior of such individuals contributes to failure. Further, Roetzheim states that failure to follow best practices may expose a company to legal liability for any failure that results, and personal liability has been addressed in the courts for specific key process areas, including testing. Therefore, one may conclude that production and operations management must continually assess process improvement issues to ensure that risk associated with legal liability is minimal.

The United States Federal Government (EPA, 2000) notes that many corporations have found that over time core processes within their organization become inefficient, bureaucratic, and cumbersome, losing their intended focus. Routine practices often add tasks and steps that do not add value to the core business goal. These inefficiencies slow down the organization, detracting from the intended goals. Based upon this assessment, industrial management functions must be concerned with process improvement initiatives. Westerman (1993) states that such improvement initiatives may allow corporations the ability to change technologies, modify or replace equipment, and alter or automate processes. Thus, sound process improvement initiatives are of paramount importance to industrial management functions and activities.

ISO CONSIDERATIONS

When considering managerial aspects of production and operations processes, managers must also consider existing mechanisms through which process improvement initiatives and functions may be facilitated. As examples, one may consider International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification. Zahran (1998) states that ISO certification may be applicable to producers of virtually any commodity, from cars to software. Davis, Aquilano and Chase (1999) state that ISO 9000 is a delineation of quality standards that incorporate the belief that management practice can be standardized to the benefit of both the producers of goods and services and their customers. Brecker (2001) reinforces this notion by stating that ISO 9000 was developed as a standard for business quality systems. Davis, Aquilano and Chase note that with respect to ISO 9000, the quality objective is to satisfy the customer organization's quality assurance requirements and to increase the level of confidence of the customer organizations in their suppliers, and a framework is provided to guide quality process improvement.

CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL OVERVIEW

Whitten (1995) states that every organization will have its own uniquely defined software development process to accommodate its particular needs. Kan (1995), Paulk (1995), and the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU, 1994) define the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) as a conceptual structure for improving the management and development of software products in a disciplined and consistent way to address the specific business needs of individual organizations. Scorsch (1996) defines the CMM as being a mechanism that provides software organizations guidance on how to gain control of their processes to develop and maintain software and how to evolve toward a culture of software engineering and management excellence. Given these concepts, the CMM may be manifested within organizations as a customized, processoriented tool to facilitate continual process improvement.

The CMM facilitates continual process improvement through evolutionary steps rather than revolutionary innovations within a framework of five maturity levels that lay successive foundations for continuous process improvement (CMU, 1994; Kan, 1995). Kan, Paulk (1995), and the Software Engineering Institute state that these maturity levels may be delineated as follows:

Each CMM level increases visibility into processes for both managers and engineering staff and focuses upon processes that are of value across the organization (CMU, 1994). In essence, the CMM becomes an evolutionary plateau that facilitates achievement of mature processes. Within levels two through five of maturity are key process area (KPA) requirements that outline a set of goals considered important for enhancing process capability.

Related to each KPA is a set of practices necessary for describing the activities and infrastructure that contribute to the most effective implementation and institutionalization of the key process area (CMU, 1994). Each succeeding level of maturity introduces additional KPAs while retaining and building upon KPA tenets of each previous maturity level as a method of generating process maturation (based upon levels two through five of the CMM). Below, as described by the SEI (CMU, 1994) and Kan (1995), Table 3 delineates example key practice areas.

Practices that describe KPAs are ordered by common features as a method of convenience (CMU, 1994). Thus, order is determined by common attributes that judge whether the implementation and institutionalization of a KPA is effective, repeatable, and lasting. Five common KPA areas are manifested, and are given by the SEI as follows within Table 4:

CONCLUSION

Given this basis of the CMM, organizations may greatly improve their organizational environments and processes through evolution from a setting where few processes exist to a setting in which processes are continuously monitored and systematically improved (CMU, 1994; Paulk, 1995). Reliance upon the individual heroics of personnel may evolve to manifest a strong sense of teamwork that exists across the organization. Caputo (1996) states that CMM implementation is only a predictor of performance, not a limit to performance within organizational environments. Finally, environments that employ risky technological environments and ad hoc data collection methodologies may evolve into settings where proactive technological embellishment and defined data analysis are manifested to generate process improvements.

References

REFERENCES

Brecker, J. (2001). Performance leadership in meeting customer requirements by doing things right the first time. Quality (Process) Improvement Methodologies-Deming, Juran, TOM, Six-Sigma. Retrieved September 5, 2001, from http://www.brecker.com

CMU (1994). Carnegie Mellon University. The Capability Maturity Model-Guidelines for improving the software process. Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Davis, M., N. Aquilano & R. Chase (1999). Fundamentals of operations management (Third Edition). New York: Irwin-McGraw Hill Publishing.

Eckes. G. (2001). The Six-Sigma revolution: How General Electric and others turned processes into profits. New York: John Wiley and Sons Publishing.

EPA (2000). Environmental Protection Agency. What is process reengineering? Retrieved August 18, 2001, from http://www.epa.gov

Kan, S. (1995). Metrics and models in software quality engineering. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Paulk, M. (1995). The rational planning of (software) projects. Proceedings of the First World Congress for Software Quality. San Francisco, CA. June 20-22.

Roetzheim, W. (2000). Formal process improvement: Ignore at your own risk. Online corporate white paper from Marotz, Inc. Accessed August 18, 2001.

Scorsch, T. (1996). The Capability Im-Maturity Model (CIMM). Crosstalk. Online Magazine, United States Air Force. Retrieved August 18, 2001, from http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/Crosstalk

Westerman. M. (1993). The business environment handbook (First Edition). Irvine, CA: Oasis Press.

Whitten, N. (1995). Managing software development projects: Formula for success (Second Edition). New York: Wiley Publishing.

Zahran, S. (1998). Software process improvement: Practical guidelines for business success. New York: Addison-Wesley.