Certification

Certification presupposes not only some knowledge by the holder of the certification, but also that the knowledge has been verified by some means and has been found to be within acceptable standards through a third party.

So how has the current state of six sigma certification come about? Motorola first developed six sigma during the late 1980s. In the early days, the focus of six sigma was actually plus or minus three standard deviations (or C_pk of 1.0). As the process evolved through the 1990s, the need for improved processes caused the concept of six sigma to move to plus or minus six standard deviations (or C_pk of 2.0). At the same time, the idea of certifying individuals was also being discussed. That discussion was based on the American Society for Quality (ASQ) experience with certifications especially the CQE certification. (The certified quality engineer (CQE) certification is one of several certifications that the ASQ provides.) It started in 1968, thus making the certification one of the oldest in the business. As successful as the CQE was—and continues to be—the process of certification even during the 1990s tended to be very technical and manufacturing oriented and was not suitable for other business practitioners.)

As the self-proclaimed six sigma consultants and practitioners were trying to use the basic tools and process of total quality in service areas as well as manufacturing, they claimed that the CQE was not meeting their requirements and was not appropriate for their needs. Today, various training organizations (see www.isixsigma.com), have grown in number and are eagerly pushing the envelope of propaganda to stand out in the general business community.

On the other hand, business managers want to have some assurance that the people they hire will bring the six sigma process into their organizations and improve customer satisfaction and profitability. Already, two professional societies now have certification processes for the six sigma methodology and many companies have self-certifications for their own black belts. However, the other levels of champion, master black belt and green belt have yet to be addressed by the professional organizations.

In the case of ASQ the National Certification Board researched the idea of a black belt certification for nearly two years and held a number of meetings to discuss the need for such a process. They decided to go forth with the idea and they began formulating their own Body Of Knowledge (BOK) and ultimately commenced with certification. Their process of certification is to ensure at least a minimum knowledge of what is described in the BOK.

To receive certification from the ASQ, the following are the minimum requirements:

• Proof of professionalism.

• Two completed six sigma projects documented by signed affidavits, or one project with a signed affidavit and three years of work experience, as it pertains to the BOK (no education waiver is given).

• Successful passage of a four-hour, 150 multiple-choice question examination.

The other professional organization that is offering a certification is the International Quality Federation (IQF). Their exam is computer-based and can be offered to anyone on demand. The major difference between ASQ's and IQF's certification is the emphasis of the organization. For IQF it is imperative that the certification be based on tangible results. As such, the candidate's own organization is in the best position to determine how effective the candidate is in applying the six sigma methodology. Thus, the IQF certification model requires that the individual be co-certified by both the IQF and a "sponsoring organization" (Pyzdek 2002).

On the other hand, we also see a trend in individual organization certifying their own black belts under the leadership of General Electric (GE). This is a very interesting phenomenon, since even at GE, many do not realize that there are many divisions within GE that have their own way applying six sigma within their unit. Thus even at GE, there is limited standardization as to how and what certification consists of. However, since many managers do not know of, or seem to care about, the nuances of what the six sigma practitioners are doing, there seems to be a common belief that if GE trained someone, then they are truly the experts in the field.

Even though there are no direct studies conducted for the specific purpose of evaluating six sigma certification, there is a body of research in regards to certification in general that we may use as surrogate data. For example, nearly all existing research on teacher qualifications or state regulations demonstrates that they have no significant relation to student performance. In fact, teacher qualification requirements have no positive correlation with teacher performance. In the end, as the Coleman Report (U.S. Office of Education, 1964) pointed out, families are the most important factors in determining students' academic performance.

No one will deny that competency is an admirable goal in any discipline and certainly in the six sigma methodology. Certification, if done correctly, can provide standardization of knowledge, but that is all. The problem is not only that most organizations, executives/managers and/or professional societies (and society at large) have accepted certification that persistently blur the distinction between good and outstanding performance, while they award certifications for passing examinations and/or being politically correct within their own organizations—even when their own personal performance is marginal and the selected project is of questionable merit. Competency is indeed very difficult to measure. Several of the problems associated with six sigma certification are outlined in the following sections.

False security about knowledge. We have, in the last three to four years, indicated that black belts and shoguns (master black belts) are the new superheroes of the organizations. We expect them to deliver fixes for problems that are causing discomfort on many levels, internal and external to the organization. We emphasize statistical thinking and statistical analysis with a sprinkling of interdisciplinary themes and hope that these items will resolve the concerns of the current organizations. We have forgotten the lessons that the scientists have taught us over the years that it is a mistake to bury one's head in the statistical sand. On average, oil tankers make it to their destinations, but the Exxon Valdez did not; on average, the world gets enough rainfall, but for a whole decade, the African Sahel did not; and on average, problem-solvers do solve problems, but sometimes they do not or, even worse, they provide the wrong solution. Certification, at this time, subverts the primary function of competency, as well as the overall quality goal of any organization. After all, a certification is a go/no go measurement and it does not represent the holder's true knowledge or performance.

Wrong emphasis on the learning process. We now believe that, with a specific affirmation, we can indeed reach perfection or specific competence. We believe that certification provides a specific piece of paper that enables us to boost our ability for that particular knowledge. Certification is such an affirmation, a false hope. Why? Because certification does not address the real issue of knowledge and competence in that order. Furthermore, by certifying someone at this time, for going through the motions of learning, we are, by default, adapting a scheme of professional promotion that has no credibility. (The proof of this statement is in the announcements of the last month's financial results from several six sigma companies. Unprecedented losses, no bonus for their employees, and thousands of lay-offs from both management and non-management ranks. If indeed all these experts on six sigma were following the six sigma methodology for their organization, would the results be so bad?) We continue to generate notions that are patently absurd, and many of those silly ideas produce not disbelief or rejection, but repeated attempts to show that they might be worthy of attention. Rather than focusing on the basic causes of competency, we look at effects. The irony here is that the entire methodology of six sigma is based on "root cause" and the certification is on the "effect." Rather than emphasizing the appropriate education and training in the school environment, we try to cram knowledge in a very limited time frame. We hire graduates from universities with statistics or engineering degrees, and then we expect them to pass a certification exam. Something is wrong here. If the university did their job, there should be no need for further certification. On the other hand, if they did not, then they should not graduate such students.

Political ploy. There is a huge difference between reputation and prestige, but it seems to us that certification, as it stands today, is nothing more than an issue of prestige. The issue of reputation is not even addressed. That makes it a political issue and in the long-term it will affect six sigma in a negative way. Lack of absolute scales will be the demise of the current certification process. For the sake of everyone involved and the integrity of certification, the fight for certification needs to be joined at the international, national, regional, institutional and individual levels.

Subjective. How can anyone talk about certification without first addressing the body of knowledge (BOK)? We know of at least four sources that define the BOK quite differently: the six sigma academy, the American Society for Quality, the International Quality Federation and the one proposed in Stamatis (2002). All of them have common points, however, not all of them agree on all issues. So the question becomes, to what BOK are you certified? Is one better than the other one?

Who certifies the certifiers? How can we believe that the certification means anything at all, since the certifiers themselves are self-proclaimed? The certifiers have forgotten that only other specialists can properly evaluate other specialists. In the case of the six sigma, arbitrarily the organizations mentioned above got together, they saw a financial bonanza and they went ahead with tests that are not even based on common knowledge. What do they measure? Do they imply that different organizations have different criteria and different base knowledge for certification? (It is amazing that "discipline envy" has clouded our thinking to the point where some individual organizations have different certifications between their own divisions and do not recognize each other's certification.)

Where is the accountability? By way of comparison, allow us to be provocative. From 1997 to 2000 McMurtrie (2001) reports that out of 2,896 accredited colleges only five have lost their accreditation, 43 have been given probation and 11 have show cause. In the field of quality: how many companies do you know that have been issued a revocation of their ISO 9000 or QS-9000 certification? How many certified lead auditors or auditors or quality professionals or professional engineers have been issued a revocation of their certification? Our point is: what is the ramification of foul play within certification? Or what can happen if there is no certification? The answer, unfortunately, is nothing. There is no accountability, because as we already mentioned there are two very important unresolved issues: there is no uniform BOK and no standardized training. Accountability implies standardization of process, knowledge, delivery and maintenance. In the current state of the six sigma certification, none of these exist.

To be sure, the research on certification is surrogate at best. For some specific studies see University of Rochester 1990; Peavey 1990; Erickson 1990; Heath and Nielson 1984; and Ray 1990. However, the surrogate research does imply (indicate) that the focus of six sigma certification may be overrated and it needs to be reexamined. Taking a test based on a lucid—as yet—body of knowledge does not guarantee success for either the individual certified or the organization that hires that certified individual.

Professionalism does not rest on a certification. It rests on experience and the application of tools to solve problems. It is unfortunate that the emphasis seems to be on protecting certain rights on credentials and not on the overall performance of the organization as a result of the six sigma methodology.

What we can hope for is the quality societies and individual organizations will push for more appropriate and applicable education and training as well as consistent base knowledge. What we would wish to see is a profession that did a better job of teaching everyone how to distinguish for himself or herself between scholarship that moves things forward (truly improve the process and customer satisfaction) and scholarship that just shakes things up (a revolutionary program that changes the direction of our misunderstandings about customer satisfaction and organizational profitability—a true 100 improvement). On a more subjective level we would like to see great emphasis to be given between the ascesis or self transformation that produces integrity, honesty, flexibility, and moral independence, so that we are indeed free to tell the Emperor that "he is not wearing any clothes." Currently we are in a limbo state, as a profession because we are afraid to speak; our self transformation has become like a loss of self. A shift in this direction may happen in the next few years, if for no other reason than that integrity, honesty, flexibility and moral independence are quaities whose value comes into high relief during a time of "high stakes."

We believe that the pressures of the current certification frenzy will converge with the pressures of an already latent dissent within the profession to produce some change, though whether the transformation will be more than superficial, we cannot predict. We hope that part of the change will involve a revived conversation about what it is to be six sigma certified. The debate for certification will continue for sure, but for right now there are more questions than answers to the process, the content and the value of six sigma certification.