Financial Services Six Sigma

Using assumptions that have not been validated can be the death of a good Six Sigma project.  So before kicking-off a new round of projects last month, we scheduled a two day "audit" of a client's business unit.  The COO and Director of Business Development decided to join us on the trip.  Seven different managers were invited to present information about their areas, including their 2007 initiatives, how they had closed out the year in 2006 and how they were going to measure themselves going forward (success metrics). 

First on the agenda was the COO with a 27 page presentation. Page 1 went relatively smoothly - it outlined the organizational chart.  We spent the next 4.5 hours on pages 2 & 3.  No, those pages didn't contain any controversial financial data or any sophisticated analysis that required elaborate explanation.  Rather, the 2 pages mapped no more than 7 process steps (plus graphics & text) that summarized the business flow.   Every process step was dissected, assumptions defined, owners outlined, issues discussed, etc... What fueled the discussion (mostly by the COO and Dir of BD) was the acknowledgement of customizations within the operation.  The minute details that can make all the difference in the world of Six Sigma. 

By the end of the two days, not only had we identified new improvement opportunities, but had also minimized the risk of collecting and/or interpreting process data incorrectly.  To quote the executives who joined us on the "audit"..."this was one of the most productive sessions...the level of undocumented detail is amazing".

Posted by Shahbaz Shahbazi at 07:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My recent post regarding a one-sided article in the WSJ has created quite an upsurge of emotion on both sides of the Quality continuum.  On one side you have those who fundamentally understand Six Sigma and all its associated benefits/shortcomings, while on the other side are a group who are rash to agitate and dismiss the methodololgy as the cause of all corporate ills everywnere!    Debate concerning the efficacy of Quality methodologies is an absolute must in this community and I urge it openly.  Only through debate and open communication will we be able to share learning lessons, failure points/causes, success stories, etc.

But I also want to be very firm in my admonition - to those who either through simple misunderstanding or others, who perhaps due to an unstated agenda-driven bias begin to malign large sections of Quality practitioners: Six Sigma is a methodology...it is a way of thinking.  I state again, one cannot hold a methodology responsible for an organization’s failure.  Does this assertion imply that every organization launching Six Sigma has had a stellar track record or alternatively, that Six Sigma is for everyone a must?  Certainly not!  But I also recognize that for a Quality launch to be successful numerous critical factors must be aligned within that organization, not to mention the capability of the external resource charged with introducing this methodology.

If you disagree with or do not believe in the efficacy and value of Six Sigma – so be it.  Opine, and let those who care to respond do so.  What is unacceptable is denying the most basic underpinning of Quality…Correlation does not evidence causation!  Fail to prove that and you are not taken seriously

Stated very simply, the article in the journal is misleading and erroneous.  And a good reporter would have quoted a Six Sigma practitioner in addition to the QualPro CEO to, at a minimum, show a modicum of balance and impartiality.

Posted by Shahbaz Shahbazi at 06:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)