Top 5 Reasons Six Sigma Needs a Governing Body

Those familiar with Six Sigma will be aware it lacks a central governing body. Without a regulating authority to monitor Six Sigma institutions, standards start to slip as variation accumulates. The very problem Six Sigma aims to thwart! It can also put off potential clients. It’s up to practitioners everywhere to maintain Six Sigma’s great reputation. We are passionate about Six Sigma and strive to deliver the best advice and training possible. We also offer a wide range of Six Sigma courses, covering all Belt levels and much more. In this article, we look at the top five reasons why Six Sigma needs a governing body.

Lack of Consistent Accreditation

There is currently a staggering amount of inconsistency between Six Sigma accreditation programs. You wouldn’t be wrong to assume all programs should operate using the same standards. Unfortunately, most simply don’t. Some programs, though they bear the Six Sigma name, bear no resemblance to it at all! Many training programs differ in their curriculums and course requirements. Our advice is to do your research. Educational institutions like universities are always trustworthy too. Provided they aren’t based on the internet.

Unreliable Training Institutions AKA Certification Mills 

Unreliable training institutions, or certification mills, are all over the internet. They tend to outnumber the reliable sites and organizations promoting Six Sigma certification too. Without a central governing body, these sites can make outrageous claims and charge extortionate prices. They are interested in making a profit, not providing great training or promoting the Six Sigma philosophy. It’s also important to note the difference between certification and accreditation. Master Black Belts certify individuals on Six Sigma training programs, whereas accrediting bodies provide accreditation to Six Sigma organizations. Therefore, if you lose your MBB, you can’t provide certification.

Multiple Organizations Claim to be the “Central” Governing Body for Six Sigma

There are many organizations out there claiming to be “central” certifying bodies for Six Sigma. The fact that there is more than one institution making this claim should be a clue not to trust them. It’s important to remember that pioneering Six Sigma companies like Motorola or General Electric have never claimed to be “central” certifying bodies. It is only recently that different organizations have been making this claim.

False and Contradictory Claims

They state that “the beauty of Six Sigma is it is very flexible […] there is no need for a one size fits all body of knowledge.” This is simply not true. Their website alone provides more than one red flag to the discerning Six Sigma practitioner.

Little to No Standardization of Practices

The lack of a central governing body to oversee Six Sigma organizations means there’s no one there to monitor standards. Ironically, many supposed “central” governing bodies will likely suffer from low sigma levels themselves, so they are doubly not to be trusted. Without anyone to regulate procedures and curriculums, it becomes difficult to view these institutions as reliable. Moreover, variation, waste, inefficiency, and under-utilization all arise from a lack of standardization. Six Sigma should eliminate these problems, not proliferate them.