|
By
Steven H. Jones
As the acceptance of Six Sigma has grown and
penetrates deeper into common business culture, a
question has begun to arise to determine when does a
process need to be improved versus designed? How do
you decide which roadmap is better for a given
problem, DMEDI or DMAIC?
While clear to veteran practitioners, this question
is not quite as clear to the general business public
or newer Six Sigma professionals. This question
also exists primarily due to the way Six Sigma has
been sold to the business community. Most
organizations have been sold on Six Sigma DMAIC
being a “quick fix” to internal organizational
issues and problems. However, the true benefit Six
Sigma brings comes when the maturity model moves
from fixing broken processes to properly building
processes from the onset.
This benefit will only be seen over time. But in
the meantime Six Sigma professionals will be faced
with receiving project charters and needing to
decide how the problem should best be resolved.
Before examining the decision process to properly
select the best roadmap for a given project, we must
review each methodology for what it is good for and
what it is not good for. Here is a definition and
breakdown of components and steps for each roadmap.
DMAIC
(Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control)
§
DMAIC is an analytical, data driven approach to
eliminate weaknesses in active processes, products
and services. DMAIC brings incremental
improvements.
DMEDI
(Design,
Measure, Explore, Develop, Implement)
§
DMEDI is more of a creative approach to designing
new robust processes, products and services. This
roadmap is focused purposed to obtain significant
competitive advantages or quantum leaps over
current environments. However DMEDI Projects tend
to be more time and resource intensive.
Let’s briefly compare and contrast each roadmap step
by step. Essentially the Define phase is the same
for each methodology. Both Define phases are
purposed to provide completed charters with clearly
stated business problems, desired results and scope
limitations. Since there is little differentiation
between the two, we can move on to the second step
of each phase.
The Measure Phase
DMEDI and DMAIC are similar in that they have five
phase steps to completion. After the first common
Define step the methodologies begin to differ
significantly. The most important differentiation
in the process lies in the second step, Measure. At
first glance the steps seem the same for both, but
under closer examination we can see that the measure
phase in the DMEDI methodology is significantly more
involved. The measure phase in DMEDI requires more
examination than DMAIC because there is little if
any existing process definition, baseline outputs
(Y’s), or critical customer requirements (CCR’s).
Because of the lack of existing definition, the
need for CCR development is much more significant in
the DMEDI Measure phase. To meet the need for
clearly defined CCR’s the QFD or house of quality is
used in multiple iterations and phases. In the
DMEDI path the house of quality can actually become
a village. This can prove necessary to properly
define a product or service that the customer truly
desires.
Analyze versus Explore
While these two steps are similar they have a
significantly different deliverable. The DMEDI
Explore phase is purposed to deliver a conceptual
design of a new process. The Analyze phase of the
DMAIC process is purposed to breakdown existing data
of an existing process to identify potential root
causes. Here the DMEDI phase is conceptual and the
DMAIC phase is tangible.
Improve versus Develop
Here again we have two similar phases that also have
differing deliverables. They are similar in that
they both are both purposed to deliver a new
process. Specifically, in DMAIC the Improve phase
is purposed to produce a rational future
state design and DMEDI is purposed to delivery an
optimal design. One difference is that the
rational design is based on statistical or
mathematic proof and the optimal design is
based largely on meeting customers’ desires.
Additionally, the phases differ as the DMAIC Improve
phase should contain a live pilot of the revised
process, whereas the DMEDI Develop phase process
lives only on paper.
Control versus Implement
The key differentiator between these two phases lies
in the piloting of a new process. In DMAIC, a
temporary, small scale future state pilot has
already been conducted in the Improve phase. In
DMEDI the pilot is conducted here in the Implement
phase. Both pilots seek to validate the capability
of the proposed process to meet or exceed the
project objectives and identify problems. But the
DMEDI Implement phase pilot is normally a permanent,
full scale deployment unlike the small scale pilot
in the DMAIC improve phase.
Beyond the differentiation in the location and scale
of the process pilots, the balance of the functions
of the Control and Implementation phases are quite
similar. Both are purposed to deliver comprehensive
control plans and charts to monitor the activity of
the new process.
The greatest difference between the two
methodologies lies in their unique purposes. The
DMAIC methodology’s resources are spent to
reduce
the problem, be it waste, cost or time. The DMEDI
methodology’s resources are spent to
prevent
potential losses.
Here is a side by side examination of DMAIC and
DMEDI Six Sigma roadmaps

Now that we have examined a comparison of the two
methodologies and contrasted their differences,
let’s look at each through real world environments
to see how each model can provide benefit.

|
Transactional Business Environment |
§
Reduce cycle time and errors on service
orders
§
Increase first call resolution on support
calls
§
Service order cycle time reduction |
§
Design of new project management office
§
Develop a new service order handling process
§
Develop a new contract renewal process |
|
Service / Manufacturing Environment |
§
Product manufacturing/assembly cycle time
reduction
§
IT solutions – improve back up and recovery
time, reduce patching time
§
Identify causes and eliminate defects in
molds
§
Eliminate false server alerts |
§
Manufacturing process requires major
redesign (conversion from gasoline to
alcohol engines)
§
Welding new materials
§
Design of new triage process for new
technologies
§
Develop new formats of data storing larger
files |
|
Product Development Environment |
§
Reduce product development cycle time
§
Identify causes of defects in a copier
design
§
Reduce defects released in new software
versions |
§
New fuel injection design
§
New material development
§
Next generation ink delivery system |
Since our original question was how to decide when
to use each methodology let’s examine the decision
inputs. Properly deciding whether your project is
going to be a DMAIC improvement project or a DMEDI
design project will be essential for real success.
There are two key questions that have to be asked in
order to properly decide which methodology will best
suit a given problem. They are, “Does any
process currently exist?” and “Is a wholesale
improvement necessary?”
If the process does not currently exist in any
format at all, then DMEDI is clearly the way to go.
But this is a tricky question. In many
organizations, processes completely lack
documentation, but the work is still being
performed. The process may even be performed
differently by different teams, but it does exist.
When a process does in fact exist, even in a very
loose form the DMAIC roadmap should be followed into
the Measure phase to set a statistical baseline to
improve from.
In some cases a process may currently exist but be
so fragmented or badly broken that to reach the
objective it is best to start from scratch. In
these cases where the desired objective and the
current performance are light years apart, the need
for a quantum leap in performance may be chosen.
This decision will need to be made after examining
the baseline data and objective of the charter. The
main reason for not automatically opting for DMEDI
is time. DMEDI projects typically require a longer
lead and resource time to complete. You won’t see
too many Kaizens in DMEDI projects.
Now that we have reviewed all of the components of
each a discussed the thought process around
selecting the most appropriate one here is a
graphical decision tree to assist with the selection
process.

----------------------------------------------------
Steven H. Jones is a Process Engineer who received
his certification as a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt by
the George Group while employed and Xerox Global
Services. He started his career at the 3M
Corporation, an early adopter of the Lean Six Sigma
methodology in 1988 and has worked in quality
improvement of Telecommunications and IT arenas
since 1993. Since then he has provided quality
improvement and process engineering services
domestically and internationally to clients such as
BP Canada, Convergys, Intercontinental Hotels, and
Microsoft. He is currently a Senior Process
Engineer with Siemens Business Services and can be
reached at
steven.jones@sbs.siemens.com.
Tell us what you
think about this article. Send a
note to the Editor.
|