Six Sigma Black Belts need a working knowledge of DFSS because they will likely redesign existing products, processes and services to accomplish the preferred performance levels. Design for Six Sigma DFSS is not replacing an organization’s existing design process. In its place, the DFSS methodology should be used as a structure at the macro level for deliverables and performance criteria for the design process which is already in place. The engineers who have been working for 10 years on a project are not told to replace the strategy DFSS. We should put together DFSS deliverables into the current development process.
Deigning the products which are customer friendly –
Customary design teams require a more in-depth knowledge of DFSS black belts. The development of a new product, process or service requires an in-depth analysis. Customers habitually don’t know what the next leap in development will or can be; so, an organization may be eternally destined to make only incremental improvements if it relies solely on the voice of the customer to dictate product development strategies. One of the common mistakes practitioners make is to assume DFSS is a disruptive technology. It is not. DFSS relies greatly on the voice of the customer to decide the suitable design approach and required level of performance. A ‘Belt’ is a Project Leader in a Six Sigma program, who has received training and certification in a Six Sigma course.
There is no definite approach for DFSS. There are many corporate executives will attempt to deploy DFSS on their own. These executives hire people with statistical and design backgrounds. These people are asked to develop some training and then cycle the engineers through the training. Each time, the result has been mixed, at best. Six or nine months into the deployment cost money. It also delays R&D projects by diverting the engineers’ attention to training even though there is no significant change to show for the invested money and time. This type of collapse in the deployment of DFSS can be prohibited by following certain key guidelines. First, managers should be trained before engineers.
It is always better to the people who are managing the projects-
There are organizations which focus on training people to use DFSS tools and processes at the tactical level, before they’ve brought the people who are managing the process on board. For the better result we must train the people who are managing the projects the cross functional teams that lead the development processes. Master Black Belts are expected to be adept at Six Sigma statistical tools and project management skills. These teams should make a plan for DFSS implementation on a project by project basis. After that the training of engineers and designers should be done.
It is important for an organization to streamline its MBB curriculum on the lines of its internal systems and structures-
The second approach is as follows. Training people on a level objective, it is difficult to project-by-project basis or integrating the training with the new make things happen in the product development schedule is a better approach. While an organization introduces Six Sigma, it follow a standard training approach and train waves of employees in DMAIC improvement methods by offering one week of training per month for four months. Training shouldn’t be done in waves unless it really makes sense. It might be fruitless if an organization fills a room with laptops and software and brings in waves of employees to go through DFSS training. It is ironical that introducing the engineers to DFSS serves no purpose if the development process takes two years and if designers not remember most of what they were taught before they have had a chance to apply it. This is a waste of time and resources.