Financial Services Six Sigma

I spent over seven years in manufacturing before making the transition to healthcare and then finally to financial services.  My first job after finishing an engineering degree, with GE Plastics, was to try and determine how to increase output.  Fast-forward to my last two years at GE and I was an MBB managing a $50 million dollar year-over-year cost reduction budget.  Six Sigma, in the world of manufacturing, and to some extent healthcare, was about cost reduction.  So when I made the shift to financial services it took a while to realize that cost reduction was not the best Six Sigma strategy.  Revenue enhancement projects were significantly more rewarding (financially), and easier to identify.  I will focus on one main reason (there are several) behind this difference and that is the cost breakdown in these two sectors:

Labor and material are some of the largest cost contributors in manufacturing.  Staff on the production line can make upwards of $60-$75 K / year and this does not include overtime.  As for material – I would rue the day that we would reject a machine at our final inspection point.  Talk about a big loss after all the labor and material that was put into producing a machine.  So it made good sense to focus the Six Sigma effort on simplifying a process or reducing process waste.  Compare that to a lending institution or a bank: their largest expense is not labor (unless they are extremely decentralized) or material, but cost of funds.    

So instead I have learnt to focus on “Time to Cash” or “Cross-Selling” or “Conversion” projects.  These projects are purely focused on revenue; they are focused on the occurrence: once you get a customer in-house, how to make sure that you keep them and get the most value from the relationship.  The difference between cost reduction vs. revenue enhancement projects in financial services is the difference between saving several thousand (if you are a large enough institution, several hundred thousands) or millions!

S. Shaffie ProcessArc, Inc. - Financial Services Six Sigma

Posted by Sheila Shaffie at 08:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

A friend recently sent me an article that fundamentally missed the point.  The piece was published by the American Banker last year and it discussed National City’s launch of a “hybrid” Six Sigma program.  It is not like me to criticize other Six Sigma practitioners, let alone an organization the size of National City.  On the contrary, I applaud institutions that take the path of early adopters and deploy Six Sigma (or any variation thereof).  After all, launching a Quality methodology can present several challenges for management, and this in a highly risk averse industry.

But in this case while the benefits of deploying Six Sigma at National City cannot and should not be denied, the article was further proof that practitioners are guilty of adding to the confusion and disinformation around Six Sigma (forget about the reporters who insert their biases).  I don’t think of myself as a Six Sigma purist, but I was frustrated as I read through this article.  My frustration stemmed from the fact that by making a few ill-informed statements (feeble attempts at differentiating National City from other organizations deploying Six Sigma) and giving their iteration of financial services Six Sigma a new moniker the author wanted us to go away with the impression that National City has created a very unique quality platform. 

The most disingenuous quotes in this piece were based on the claims that National City’s quality program is “quite different” and that “no one in the financial services industry is bringing this whole pie together the way we envision”.  These statements were based on National City incorporating employee “collaboration” (actually a LEAN principle more commonly known as Kaizan) with LEAN management (if this sounds a bit convoluted to you, you are on the mark: these are the same thing) and manufacturing Six Sigma.

So the bottom line here is that National City merged Lean with Six Sigma and called this amalgamation “Fusion”.  At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what you call it, call it apple pie, call it quiche, but don’t give the marketplace the illusion that you now have a new version of Six Sigma.  Any quality practitioner knows that a Quality deployment will require an in-depth knowledge of a multitude of tools.  But what differentiates the good one from the many is their understanding of how and when to use what tool.   Then again, maybe if I give the methodology we use a new name I will be considered newsworthy.

S. Shaffie ProcessArc, Inc. - Financial Services Six Sigma 

Posted by Sheila Shaffie at 03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)