Six Sigma Course Criticisms There are some who aren’t big fans of Six Sigma courses and

they are usually quick to point out some of the technique’s shortcomings. For one, there are those who say that the methodologies employed within the process are better suited for statisticians than business and manufacturing managers. And as with any managerial or production technique its success post-implementation usually varies (and sometimes fails to deliver) for certain companies. There are those who point out the fact that with the increasing importance of information technology and its surrounding infrastructures to a business’ success, Six Sigma courses fail to find themselves incorporated under this auspice in a meaningful and useful way. In addition, the (more) recent trend towards de-bureaucratizing and hierarchal flattening in many companies raises the question as to why process improvement should be left only in the hands of “Six Sigma Black Belts” and “Six Sigma Green Belts” as opposed to quality improvement being arisen at from all levels. Some question why it advocates only incremental improvement as opposed to more radical breakthroughs in process improvement or enhanced production qualities. And finally, some believe that it may not be particularly conducive to innovationcentric organizations. However it may be the case that Six Sigma courses critics are being too liberal in their applicability of the approach. Perhaps for some companies Six Sigma courses are better suited only to the realm of product manufacturing, where the benefit of the reduction of defects to only 1 in 6 standard deviations is made the most apparent. After all, it would probably make little sense from a cost perspective to apply Six Sigma courses to business processes in which the possible gains realized from decreasing defects (say, fixing blotches on a few sales brochures) does not make up for the time and cost that went into the implementation of the Six Sigma courses.