Quality Engineering, 22:299305, 2010

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0898-2112 print=1532-4222 online
DOI: 10.1080/08982112.2010.495102

Six Triumphs and Six Tragedies

of Six Sigma
T. N. Goh
Industrial and Systems
Engineering Department,
National University of Singapore,
Singapore

ABSTRACT Six Sigma as a quality improvement framework has enjoyed an

unprecedented long period of popularity. This article brings out factors
that contribute to the uniqueness of Six Sigma, with its extensions and
derivatives such as Design for Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma. Those features
that have brought about an impetus for quality improvement are regarded as
triumphs of Six Sigma, whereas some worrying trends in the practice of
Six Sigma are labeled as tragedies. Clearly, industry should leverage on
the strengths of Six Sigma and be careful not to become unwitting victims
of the weaknesses. A realistic and balanced view is certainly called for at this
juncture, and the advantages and pitfalls associated with Six Sigma should
be fully recognized if Six Sigma is to continue its winning streak of the past
quarter of a century.
KEYWORDS Design for Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, quality engineering, quality
management, Six Sigma, statistical thinking

INTRODUCTION

Address correspondence to T. N. Goh,

Industrial and Systems Engineering
Department, National University of
Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent,
Singapore, 119260. E-mail:
isegohtn@nus.edu.sg

Some 20 years ago, at the height of popularity and controversy of the

so-called Taguchi methodsexemplified by Taguchi (1986)an article
by Pignatellio and Ramberg (1991) appeared in Quality Engineering pointing out the positive and negative aspects of the Taguchi version of quality
engineering and experimental design, with the euphoria in industry at that
time as a backdrop. Today, Taguchi is no longer on the lips of quality
engineers and managersat least, it is not deemed fashionable anymore
to talk about it. In fact, consultants can no longer make easy money
by repeating the NBC mantra If Japan can, why cant you? With the
recent great Toyota automobile recalls, from now on even the Toyota
Method of production probably will have to be put on the back burner
at least for some time. This article addresses a subject that is all American,
something that has replaced Taguchi method as the most talked-about
quality improvement approach for almost two decades. This is, of course,
Six Sigma, on which there has been such an abundance of literature that
elaboration on its contents would be unnecessarysee, for example,
Harry and Schroder (1999), Hahn et al. (2000), Goh (2002), and Brady
and Allen (2006).
299

Six Sigma, in the course of its development, has

generated a number of derivatives and extensions,
such as Design for Six Sigmae.g., Tennant
(2002)and Lean Six Sigmae.g., George (2002).
In this article, the term Six Sigma covers all these
variants collectively because they share basically
the same analytical foundations, with similar modes
of application. Regardless of the variant, Six Sigma
has commanded wide attention in industry and,
much like the Taguchi phenomenon in the 1980s,
success stories abound in many publications; detractors inevitably also have their say from time to time;
for example, Lee (2001), Schrage (2001), Morris
(2006), and Mika (2006). However, arguments
against Six Sigma such as these are not usually
made on rigorous grounds; likewise, promoters of
Six Sigma tend to offer casual promises such as
Savings can hit $300 K per project, so a single Black
Belt can potentially bring a company $1.2 million to
the good annually (Harry and Crawford 2005).
Thus, some realistic assessment of all things Six
Sigma at this juncture would not be out of place,
in view of the surge of interests in Six Sigma in industry on one hand and the considerable investments
made by companies in manpower development
and external expertise on the other. Only with better
understanding of the subject could an organization
leverage on Six Sigmas strengths and overcome its
weaknesses and be able to answer this question with
confidence: To Six Sigma, or not to Six Sigma?

WHAT QUALIFIES TO BE MENTIONED

Just as Pignatellio and Ramberg (1991) effectively
used the triumphs and tragedies categorization
to highlight the notable aspects of Taguchi methods,
a similar approach is taken here with respect to Six
Sigma. Discussions of features of Six Sigma abound
in the literature, such as Hahn (2005), but presented
here will be the most important facts that an individual or company ought to know about Six Sigma.
For this reason, only six of each category are brought
up, though the lists could be readily extended.
Some explanation of these categories is in order.
What constitutes a triumph? Basically, a triumph
exists when in the field of quality engineering there
has not been a similarly meritorious approach or
methodology before; the item in question must be
able to lead to a significant impact or paradigm shift,
T. N. Goh

with results that are of practical value; that is, not just
a theoretically elegant scenario. What, on the other
hand, qualifies as a tragedy? The answer is any
feature that, if unchecked, could negate a triumph,
create misguided or misled actions, or even destroy
what originally has been useful. The selection of
six items in each category is by no means definitive
or unique and has been made largely based on the
authors personal experience in training, consulting,
and research in Six Sigma over many years. Because
the relative significance of each item is a matter of
personal opinion, there is no particular order in
which the items are presented in the following
sections.

SIX SIGMA TRIUMPHS

Triumph No. 1
Use of a common, realistic metric for quality
assessment and improvement: The use of critical-toquality (CTQ) and defects per million opportunities
(dpmo) as performance indices is a trademark of
Six Sigma. Deliberations on the choice and definition
of CTQ would help focus on the meaningful and
avoid the inconsequential. As a yardstick for measure
of performance, dpmo allows ready comparisons of
performance such as one process versus another,
before versus after, as well as cross-process comparative studies. This is also associated with an
equivalent yardstick, namely, sigma level that can
be used for purposes such as benchmarking and
project target setting. It may be noted, though, that
not all outcomes are binary (defective or nondefective), and in some cases even a binary classification can be arbitrary (e.g., the time it takes to
respond to a certain category of customer request).
The important point is that, for the first time, zero
defect is no longer an often-spoken-of but elusive
goal (or worse, a lip service); instead, one is supposed to face the realistic challenges of non-zero
defect situations squarely. This is an important paradigm shift, with which the nebulous promise of zero
defect is abandoned, though serious efforts are made
(with effective infrastructure and tools, as detailed in
the descriptions of other triumphs later on) to inch
toward that goal. Furthermore, with Six Sigma, there
are now generic metrics for marking progress; the
defect measurements in the hands of the quality
300

practitioner transcend processes and industries of

different nature. Generally, concepts expressed in
terms of dpmo and sigma levels can be more readily
explained and accepted by management than more
formal mathematical jargons.

Triumph No. 2
Clear assignment of roles and responsibilities in
performance improvement efforts: Another important
paradigm shift that comes with Six Sigma is ditching
of the refrain Quality is Everybodys Business. The
intent of this statement may be good and valid, but in
the real world this could be taken to imply diffused
responsibilities, especially whenever there are problems, with the assumption that everybody is equally
capable of handling quality issues. It is well known
that in many situations, Everybodys Business in
the end could degenerate into Nobodys Business.
Not so in Six Sigma; personnel with various
degrees of training and experience are designated
clearly, and there are now individuals recognized
to know more tools than others when it comes to
performance improvement or problem solving.
Thus, there is a commonly acknowledged hierarchy
of people: ChampionsMaster Black BeltsBlack
BeltsGreen BeltsYellow Belts that have different
professional responsibilities in an organization. In
addition, the success of Six Sigma depends largely
on top management leadership rather than the previous bottom-up concepts: quality control circles,
for example, may still have their place in handling
specific local problems, but they cannot be the staple
diet for fundamental organizational performance
enhancement and customer satisfaction.

Triumph No. 3
Logical alignment of statistical tools: The concept
that the whole is larger than the sum of the parts
cannot be truer when it comes to the deployment
of statistical tools in Six Sigma. Many an academic
has pronounced that there is nothing new in Six
Sigma. This is true when Six Sigma methodologies
are taken apart; for example, distribution functions
describing variability have been described in detail
in many books before, process capability analysis is
a known and used concept, analysis of variance
is recognized by every student of statistics, gage
301

repeatability and reproducibility study is an

established procedure, design of experiments is not
a fresh concept, control charts have been applied
for decades . . . and indeed there are already plenty
of well-established college courses or on-the-job
training programs on these subjects. So, whats new?
What is new, as offered by Six Sigma, is the alignment and integration of statistical toolsheretofore
taught and learned in a disjointed mannerinto a
logical, purposeful sequence for CTQ improvement
and business competitiveness. Specifically, the
tools are built into a DefineMeasureAnalyze
ImprovementControl (or DMAIC) framework that
suggests, for example, that a process be optimized
via statistical design of experiments in the Improve
phrase before being sustained by control chart applications in the Control phraseinstead of drawing
up a control chart for something that is not even
known to be optimal or otherwise. In fact, in pre-Six
Sigma days, the more effective the control chart, the
longer the continuation of some nonoptimized process. In other words, Six Sigma makes statistics work
harder (by seeking the optimal) and smarter (by
focusing on the best) in the hands of nonstatisticians.

Triumph No. 4
Recognition of the time effects on processes: Talking about the use of statistics by nonstatisticians
in the past, for understandable reasons, practically
only time-invariant models are used by the rank-andfile. Six Sigma does not provide the full answer to the
consequences of time-dependent natural changes,
but it does bring up the concept of short-term
versus long-term variation; that is, the 1.5 sigma
shift in the assessment of dpmo and sigma levels.
Although the rationale for such a shift is an unresolved issue (see, for example, ASQ Discussion
Boards [2005]), the fact remains that Six Sigma is
the only quality improvement approach that prominently recognizes and fully takes into account what
any experienced quality practitioner must have
faced: the relentless realization of the second law
of thermodynamics, meaning Things left to themselves will deteriorate. No procedures, formulated
by textbooks or otherwise, prior to the advent of
Six Sigma required practitioners to express this real
and important phenomenon explicitly up front.
Regardless of the exact nature of a process one
Six Triumphs and Six Tragedies of Six Sigma

is handling, this is an insightful defensive and

preemptive move.

Triumph No. 5
Unprecedented synergy with modern information
technology: Six Sigma attained its popularity among
practitioners because it arrived at the right time.
Should Six Sigma have appeared on the scene, say,
20 years earlier than the mid-1980s, it would not take
off because it is statistics basedthe shear amount of
data crunching would mean that only dedicated
personnel hired to crank big and noisy mechanical
calculators would want to have anything to do with
it. Many have lamented the nonuse of statistics in
industry, for example, Penzias (1989), but few have
admitted the real and perceived obstacles, namely,
the efforts it would take to gather, store, transform,
and analyze data in industrial settings.
By the 1990s, with the appearance and swift
prevalence of both hardware and software brought
about by the age of information technology, that is,
personal computers, notebook computers, with
user-friendly versions of the likes of MINITAB and
JMP, application of Six Sigma no longer demands
deep knowledge of statistical theory or superior data
processing capabilities. The credit may not entirely
lie in the contents of DMAIC, but winning over
hesitant onlookers and converting industry people
into aficionados of statistical tools is an undeniable
triumph of Six Sigma.

Triumph No. 6
Capabilities to grow for larger roles for business
competitiveness: Unlike many other quality tools or
certification systems that remain essentially the same
throughout their useful life, Six Sigma is organic. Six
Sigma as applied in industry today can be a far cry
from the Six Sigma of the 1980s. Through the years,
Six Sigma has been augmented, extended, and
transformed into even more comprehensive frameworks that are applicable all the way from design
to manufacture (of products) or implementation (of
service systems).
Design for Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma, in a variety of roadmaps in different organizations, are major
examples of the upshot of the classic Six Sigma
formula from Motorola. The former reflects the belief
T. N. Goh

that Prevention is better than cure, and the latter

recognizes that waste elimination should go hand
in hand with variation reduction. There is no apparent limit to what Six Sigma might be morphed into in
the years to come: mass customization, for example
(Piller and Tseng 2010), is one possible direction
for development. In recent years, serious attempts
to introduce Six Sigma into service sectorsgovernment, education, health care, transportation, tourism,
etc.actually reflect the vitality of Six Sigma and
constitute a veritable triumph over any narrowly
defined and applied procedures for quality.

SIX SIGMA TRAGEDIES

Not all things associated with Six Sigma are flawless, however. Some of the unsatisfactory aspects of
Six Sigma are not inherent in Six Sigma itself but in
the way in which Six Sigma is learned or deployed.
Left unchecked, such weaknesses could lead to the
undoing of Six Sigma in the long run. Opinions could
differ, but the accounts given below are based on
what has been observed in industry.

Tragedy No. 1
The belief that Six Sigma (as typical Black Belts
know it) is universally applicable: This is related to
the growing extension of Six Sigma applications,
especially to nonmanufacturing systems. Unfortunately, this is where the Achilles heel of the common
Six Sigma body of knowledge exhibits itselfeven
though the training of Six Sigma workers has been a
frequent subject of discussion; see Hoerl (2001), for
example. Many run-of-the-mill Black Belts are ignorant of, for example, queuing theory, methods for
discrete observations, as well as the nature of ordinal
scales or correlated observations commonly found in
service systems. Many of them would take on service
quality projects with the idea that they have already
been well prepared by the standard Black Belt
training program.
In principle, it is commendable for a quality professional to try to push the boundaries of Six Sigma
applications. However, Black Belts using conventional Six Sigma procedures on service systems could
end up with results that could not stand up to serious
scrutiny of a good statistician. The problem could
be compounded in some situations where
302

recommendations cannot be tested or demonstrated

because the system in question has already changed
in characteristics or boundaries over the project
duration. The tragedy is doubled if the Black Belts
are not even aware of their own inadequacy or
limitations and, instead, brandish to management
or customers the outcomes of half-baked studies.

Tragedy No. 2
Obsession with personal attainments: As in many
other situations, the means could gradually and
unwittingly become the end. Witness the myriad
of overprized (or, interestingly in some cases,
discounted) commercial Black Belt or Green Belt
training programs that promise certification at the
end. It seems forgotten that customers benefits,
and ultimately an organizations business interests,
were the very motivation for Six Sigma originally.
This is where some CTQ ought to be defined: is Six
Sigma meant to benefit an organizations customers
or a certification project owner?
Because Six Sigma calls for a hierarchy of professionals with a differentiation in levels of expertise
and responsibilities, designation by different colors
of belts is useful. However, most advertisements
today for Six Sigma training and many potential
takers seem to treat certification to a belt of a certain
color to be the sole objective; the brutal fact is that
classes are nowadays offered with individuals
improved resumes as the unabashed motivation,
rather than any customers improved satisfaction or
any organizations improved bottom line. A practice
has already been observed that presents BB or
MBB in a resume as it were a professional degree,
rather than a role within Six Sigma implementation.

Tragedy No. 3
The idea that professional statisticians are no
longer needed: The main feature that contributes to
the triumphs of Six Sigma could become an inhibitor
of further successes. Many Six Sigma workers, particularly freshly minted Black Belts, tend to have the
idea, albeit an implicit one, that the tools entailed
in DMAIC are both necessary and sufficient for problem solving in the real world. (Tragedy No. 1 thus
comes to mind again). The certification process, if
anything, helps foster this misconception because it
303

implies that an individual is now fit to handle Six

Sigma implementation; in reality, all it means is that
the person has satisfied certain requirements prescribed by anything from an established organization
such as ASQ to a fee-grabbing consulting outfit with
unknown track record.
Admittedly, some enlightened trainers and their
learners are aware of the ocean of knowledge and
tools left untouched during the standard Six Sigma
training: a well-designed training program would
use the Pareto principle to emphasize to the trainees
that what is covered, the vital 20%, is actually not
always needed, whereas the rest, 80% of other tools
not in the DMAIC syllabus, are not really all trivial
and occasionally have to be called forfor that, help
from professional statisticians would certainly be
needed. For a fuller discussion, see, for example,
Hahn and Hoerl (1998).

Tragedy No. 4
Irresponsible hype of Six Sigma: Many, especially
managers, are attracted by easy benefits casually promised by Six Sigma promoters, many of whom nowadays could be entirely commercially motivated. For
example, it remains to be proven whether seductive
statements such as this are scientifically supported:
As much as $175,000=project and $1 million=yr=
Black Belt (Harry 1998; interestingly, one may note
the inconsistency between this promise and the
statement quoted in the Introduction section of
this article). It is real, though, that exorbitant
amounts tend to be quoted by many commercial
training-cum-certification offerings. Other motivators include descriptions, accompanied by data
and graphs, of enviable rises in stock prices that only
Six Sigma companies would enjoy, though the fact
was that during the early 1990s, there was a general
rise in stock prices in the United States, and practically all prices dipped toward the end of 2008,
Six Sigma or no Six Sigma! There actually was a
formal study on this subject some time ago (Goh
et al. 2003).
Because the likes of General Electric are invariably
held up as models for Six Sigma implementation, for
example, Snee and Hoerl (2003), the practice begs
the question as to whether only organizations with
the scale and operations of General Electric would
benefit from Six Sigma deployment. The upshot is
Six Triumphs and Six Tragedies of Six Sigma

likely to be either (a) smaller organizations believe

that Six Sigma is not appropriate for them, therefore
ignoring it; or (b) such organizations are disillusioned when the fancied extraordinary profits turned
out to be too good to be true and do not materializeafter hefty fees have been paid out and no one
is answerable for the failure of Six Sigma. If this is
not a tragedy, one wonders what is.

A bigoted In Data We Trust mentality: Precisely

because Six Sigma is data driven, sometimes a practitioner could go overboard with statistical evidence. Thus, arguments could be advanced in
favor of a course of action on the strength of some
p-value generated by some computer software,
rather than considered opinions based on the experience or insights of business leaders. This is particularly seen in projects presented for certification
purposes: one could get the impression that the
world is ruled by outputs from MINITAB (or such
like), because once some p-value falls within a certain range and the residual checks look passable,
all would seem to live happily ever after. This is
not to say, of course, that different attitudes cannot
be found; a good Six Sigma training program would
produce professionals who are masters, rather than
slaves, of statistical tools and software packages.
In fact, the slave mentality in Six Sigma is exemplified by a practitioners confidence and ability in
handling merely quantitative information. Some
would make a mountain out of a molehill, using data
of dubious quality or data from some poorly constructed or responded survey. Not a few would be
at a loss when encountered with a CTQ that is obviously non-numeric. A quote would suffice to
describe the syndrome and its consequence: To
many it will always seem better to have measurable
progress toward the wrong goals than unmeasurable
progress toward the right ones (Galbraith 1978).
Apparently the tragedy is not confined to the world
of economists.

those wearing Belts of whatever color in Six Sigma

are expected to conform to the DMAIC straitjacket.
Quick results and tangible savings are sometimes
engineered to reflect the success of a project
especially by those associated with the unguaranteed
profit promises, as pointed out previously. This is not
necessarily consistent with customer satisfaction or
business competitiveness, because suboptimization
and short-term benefits could be mistaken as fundamental improvements. Even adherence to, say, the
3.4 dpmo benchmark is not always logical; it could
actually go against customer satisfaction, as pointed
out elsewhere (Conti et al. 2003). A parable on suboptimization can be drawn from a scene in the movie
Titanic, in which one could certainly applaud the
exquisite music performed with seamless teamwork
by the quartet, oblivious of the fact that the ship
was slowly sinking! (In the same vein, one could
ask: would it make sense to throw in Six Sigma manpower to improve the productivity of a mechanical
typewriter assembly line?)
There is one further point that is no less important.
One expectation of Six Sigma is the development of
Black Belts into business leaders of the future. Leaving aside the rigidity of DMAIC (during the
certification-based training anyway), it is clear that
nothing in Six Sigma prepares a Black Belt for technology changes or breakthroughs, technology substitution, lifestyle evolution, or cultural differences.
Furthermore, human attributes that relate to successes are hardly ingredients found in DMAIC:
imagination, vision, passion, insight, judgment, creativity, curiosity, perseverance, just to name a few
though this is not to imply that none of these has
been seen in actual Six Sigma endeavors. The spirit
of innovation, synergy, breakthrough, and entrepreneurship, for example, could prove to be the prime
mover of an organization, not the behavior of many
a Six Sigma certification seeker. So the point is, it
would be tragic indeed if carefully chosen and
nurtured Black Blacks fail to realize their potential
precisely because of what is lacking in Six Sigma
itself.

Tragedy No. 6

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Ignorance or neglect of what is important beyond

DMAIC: Six Sigma as commonly practiced is
technology-blind and human-ignorant. In particular,

In the final analysis, Six Sigma offers a quality

improvement and business excellence roadmap
inspired by statistical thinking and guided by

Tragedy No. 5

T. N. Goh

304

data-driven techniques. In this respect, useful

insights can be gained from, for example, Hoerl
and Snee (2002). The observations highlighted in
the previous sections arose, as explained before,
from the authors experience in organizations
ranging from ones with a handful of employees to
one of General Electrics large companies, personally
interacting with nationals of about a dozen countries
over the years. The discussions here are motivated
by the fact that there are still companies today trying
to decide, among other things, whether it is wise or
safe to embrace Six Sigma, so to speak, after being
exposed to various forms of publicity on the subject.
This article is basically a two-pronged promotion
of Six Sigma, namely, a call for reinforcement of its
merits or triumphs and sounding of caution where
tragedies could happen. Promoters of Six Sigma
may well highlight the inherent Six Sigma triumphs
to the uninitiated, but they owe the quality profession a responsibility to minimize the chances of
tragedies. In particular, they should avoid the greed
and fear approach in securing the next Six Sigma
buyer (yes, for want of a better word); this author,
for one, considers arguments such as the $XXX savings per project inducement and the 99% not good
enough threat as used by some Six Sigma peddlers
cheap, nonprofessional, and an intellectual insult to
business leaders. In fact, Six Sigma does not need
to depend on hyperbole to gain acceptance; with
responsible professionals conscious efforts to avert
potential tragedies, it has all the ingredients to continue to be triumphant for many years to come.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

T. N. Goh holds a B.E. from the University of
Saskatchewan and a Ph.D. from the University of
WisconsinMadison. A Fellow of ASQ and Academician of the International Academy for Quality
(IAQ), he is also a former Director of the Office of
Quality Management and former Dean of Engineering at the National University of Singapore. He is a
coauthor of the book Six Sigma: Advanced Techniques for Black Belts and Master Black Belts (Wiley,

305

2006) which won the inaugural Masing Book Prize

of the IAQ. Currently he serves on the editorial
boards of ten international technical journals.

REFERENCES
ASQ Discussion Boards. (2005). Various contributions. Available at:
http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/thread.jspa?threadID=1517&
forumID=18
Brady, J. E., Allen, T. T. (2006). Six Sigma literature: A review and agenda
for future research. Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
22(3):335367.
Conti, T., Kondo, Y., Watson, G. H., Eds. (2003). Quality into the
Twenty-First Century. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press.
Galbraith, J. K. (1978). The New Industrial State, 3rd ed. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
George, M. L. (2002). Lean Six Sigma: Combining Six Sigma Quality with
Lean Production Speed. Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Goh, T. N. (2002). A strategic assessment of Six Sigma. Quality and
Reliability Engineering International, 18(5):403410.
Goh, T. N., Low, P. C., Tsui, K., Xie, M. (2003). Impact of Six Sigma
implementation on stock price performance. Total Quality and
Business Excellence, 14(7):753763.
Hahn, G. J. (2005). Six Sigma: 20 Key lessons learned: Experience shows
what works and does not work. Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, 21(3):225233.
Hahn, G. J., Doganaksoy, N., Hoerl, R. W. (2000). The evolution of Six
Sigma. Quality Engineering, 12(3):317326.
Hahn, G. J., Hoerl, R. W. (1998). Key challenges for statisticians in business and industry. Technometrics, 40(3):195200.
Harry, M. J. (1998). Six Sigma: A breakthrough strategy for profitability.
Quality Progress, 31(5):6064.
Harry, M. J., Crawford, D. (2005). Six SigmaThe next generation.
Machine Design, February.
Harry, M. J., Schroeder, R. (1999). Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the Worlds Top Corporations.
New York: Doubleday.
Hoerl, R. W. (2001). Six Sigma Black Belts: What do they need to know?
(with discussion). Journal of Quality Technology, 33(4):391435.
Hoerl, R. W., Snee, R. D. (2002). Statistical Thinking: Improving Business
Performance. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
Lee, C. (2001). Why you can safely ignore Six Sigma. Fortune, January.
Mika, G. (2006). Six Sigma isnt lean. Manufacturing Engineering, July.
Morris, B. (2006). New rule: Look out, not in. Fortune, July.
Penzias, A. (1989). Teaching statistics to engineers [Editorial]. Science,
244(4908):1025.
Pignatiello, J. J., Ramberg, J. S. (1991). Top ten triumphs and tragedies of
Genichi Taguchi. Quality Engineering, 4(2):211225.
Piller, F. T., Tseng, M. M., Eds. (2010). Handbook of Research in Mass
Customization and Personalization. Singapore: World Scientific.
Schrage, M. (2001). Make no mistake? Fortune, December.
Snee, R. D., Hoerl, R. W. (2003). Leading Six Sigma: A Step-by-Step Guide
Based on Experience with GE and Other Six Sigma Companies. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: FT-Prentice Hall.
Taguchi, G. (1986). Introduction to Quality Engineering. Tokyo: Asian
Productivity Organization.
Tennant, G. (2002). Design For Six Sigma: Launching New Products and
Services without Failure. Hampshire, UK: Gower.

Six Triumphs and Six Tragedies of Six Sigma

Copyright of Quality Engineering is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.