thank you for your comment and implied question. You are right: it appears that better communication and coordination would have made this episode less frustrating to everyone concerned.

What makes these events also applicable to Six Sigma is the Catch-22 between “lack of data” and “defining the problem.” In the Define phase of DMAIC our challenge is to understand and agree on the parameters that allow us to quantify the problem and measure progress. When we deal with routine situations, we have industry norms and best practices to guide the problem definition. Things get interesting when knowledgeable people disagree about what the norms and best practices should be. In this case, some people felt the need to be conservative in the name of safety, while others preferred to assess the risk in less stringent terms.

A successful Six Sigma project leader needs to be able to harmonize conflicting needs and priorities in order to complete the “Define” phase. Often data can help, but there are times when stakeholders disagree on what the data means and how it should influence our actions. To me the Eyjafjallajokull eruption is a case study of how difficult “defining the issue” can be.

Not sure why this was linked under six sigma or how six sigma methodology could have made much of a difference (though better communication may have), but you’ve provided some good links.