How do you measure a year in the life… with Six Sigma?

Every GE employee is trained in Six Sigma, and most have at least a Green Belt certification.  One of the fundamental concepts within Six Sigma is measurement – how you quantify cause and effect. Recently the NY Times published an interesting article discussing this concept, but in the interest of monitoring and recording daily human behavior and biological performance.

As scientists, we embrace the ability to accurately and precisely measure phenomena in the lab.  We are comfortable with the idea that a well-crafted measurement technique carries more weight than a hunch, and yet we sometimes don’t carry that same attitude toward daily life.  Competitive runners can attest to the training breakthroughs incited by new insight from reviewing a training log.  Studies show that dieters who keep a food diary are more likely to maintain long-term weight loss (and certain commercial weight-loss programs make great use of this idea).  I have considered using Six Sigma to optimize things in my life…the perfect recipe for chocolate chip cookies, the right ratio of hops to barley in a homebrewed beer, running a Gage R&R on the temperature control in my oven.  I know individuals who built runcharts of their newborn child’s feeding habits, sleeping schedule, height, and weight.  Measurement is a big deal – as scientists, we don’t like to make decisions without data, and data quality can significantly impact decision quality.

As a chemical engineer, I’m used to building experiments around variables that are pretty straightforward to measure – temperature, pressure, flow rate.  It’s easy to take it for granted that you can measure your system’s outputs.  However, precise and accurate measurement of some phenomena, like human behavior, can be much more elusive.  I am fascinated by the experiments psychologists design to quantify human behavior, and the creative methods they use to overcome measurement challenges.  An interesting example of this is the subject of this week’s episode of PBS’ Nova, which explores how some researchers study and quantify irrational human behavior as it relates to dealing with money.

In many ways, we all are interested in the data that describes our lives and behavior.  When we turn that inquisitive eye and demand for data to ourselves, how much more could we learn, and further, what would we do with that information?  In yoga, we are taught to “listen to your body” – robust self-measurement and data monitoring gives this a whole new meaning.  If I had data that indicated that a cup of coffee doesn’t really make me more alert or focused, would I stop drinking coffee?  As queried in the Broadway musical “Rent”, how do you measure a year in the life?

Comments

Upboated for the Rent reference!

It is indeed fascinating to hear how humanity-based scientists try to set up experiments to control for data gathering problems. I think it is nonetheless foolish to put hard science and humanity-based science in the same category of qualification; there can still be things wrong (and often are) with the beautiful tricks researchers use to fix data gathering problems.

It fascinates me that we with our English language have dozens of different words for “beautiful”, but can’t differentiate between hard science and humanity-based science, or soft sciences like economics and sociology.

Re: the topic, measuring a year in the life, I would be among the first in line to get a full suite of biometric implants to measure what’s going on in The Incredible Machine, but ONLY IF I felt that it was a generally secure system – non-invasive into my body’s processes, no remote self-destruct mechanisms, fiendishly devious poison capsules designed to release when I want to stand up to my government. I would want it to be mine, is the drive, not on lease in any capacity from someone else. Sanctity of the body; not sure I did a very good job explaining it.

Re: coffee – in order to stop drinking coffee, I would need to observe any kind of negative performance associated with it. If it’s a neutral tradeoff whether I drink coffee or not, I will continue doing it because I like drinking coffee.

Good thoughtful post!

“I think it is nonetheless foolish to put hard science and humanity-based science in the same category of qualification; there can still be things wrong (and often are) with the beautiful tricks researchers use to fix data gathering problems.”

I disagree with your implication that “soft science” measurements and results are inferior to those of “hard science” experiments. It can be just as easy to fudge “hard” data to yield the answer you want.

Thanks for your comments!

I work at a company in the Republic of Korea. Our company’s management people are interested in the successful 6 sigma model of GE. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of the regulation or manual for estimating 6 sigma participants in your company? We would like to benchmark your model and introduce 6 Sigma tool for our company. I would appreciate your reply.

Well,applying scientific measures into daily life,I don’t think it’s a good idea.To be more emotional can let us have a happier life than more logical,which I agree on. Besides,it will take extra time out of ours.

Leave a comment

Your comment needs to be approved by the site owner before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please read the .

Name*
Email* (We will never share your email address)
Comment

join the conversation


editors

Meet the researchers

Meet talented scientists from GE's Global Research centers around the world