Implementing the Six Sigma methodology can still be a very successful approach to process improvement. But while Six Sigma may be very effective at controlling processes, elements that are harder to control, such as employee behavior and innovation/ideation, can hinder long-term success. The methodology employs rigorous statistical analysis to identify defect areas, the correction of which produces better quality, lower costs, and increased efficiency. Some of the aspects that make Six Sigma powerful may in fact reduce its overall effectiveness. Process improvements may perfectly achieve their objectives, but the workforce may not be prepared to accept them as part of their daily routines. Thus, at Six Sigma locations, a sizable gap may exist: While it might be clear what type of change is needed to technically enhance throughput, the success of that effort hinges on whether that behavior is modified permanently. The situation is exacerbated if management fails to communicate the reasons behind the change and fails to demonstrate strong, visible support for it. With any significant change in internal processes, just the initial talk of the intended change can be unsettling to a workforce comfortable in its current routine. Much less specific and robust, however, are their efforts regarding the workers upon whom the company depends. They typically excel in statistical analysis and in addressing specific parts of the process. The experts driving these initiatives tend to be extremely successful at developing technical changes that positively impact company performance. We often note a behavior-change gap within companies that devote significant resources to the Six Sigma philosophies. Equal attention must be paid to people, innovation, and customer relationships. But are there ways to supplement the methodology to improve its likelihood of success? Six Sigma is merely a set of process tools that should be only one part of a more holistic process-improvement strategy. These examples show that companies cannot focus on implementing Six Sigma in isolation. Experts questioned whether McNerney’s-and Six Sigma’s-unyielding emphasis on efficiency stifled 3M’s creativity and innovation. Profits initially grew approximately 22 percent a year, but then languished. Profitability soared, but the stock price plummeted.ģM also struggled with Six Sigma, though it seemed promising when first implemented under CEO James McNerney, a former GE executive. In the American Customer Satisfaction Index rankings, the company dropped from a top spot among major retailers to the bottom in 2005. Yet, amazingly, the majority of all corporate Six Sigma initiatives-60 percent-fail to yield the desired results, according to Praveen Gupta, a noted author who has been involved with the methodology since its origin in the 1980s.Īmid rising concern regarding these failures, more corporations-across multiple industry sectors-are now pulling back on their Six Sigma initiatives, realizing that the methodology by itself is not the cure-all for corporate ills.Īt Home Depot, for example, former CEO Robert Nardelli was ousted after his strict focus on Six Sigma negatively affected worker morale and consumer sentiment. Since Jack Welch, the former chief execuive officer of GE, popularized Six Sigma in the late 1990s, the business-management methodology has had a profound impact.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |