Implementation of Six Sigma in Service industry

[Mike S.]

Some bad experiences should not tarnish the entire methodology.

Agreed. But at what point does “some” become too many?

I wish like heck that in our company we had a true need for six sigma activities. It would mean that the 80-95% of problems that do not need six sigma methodologies to fix were already solved and the money spent on 2 black belts was not totally wasted. We would be so much better off.

Instead, at the direction of the corporate quality guru and the bobble-head nodding of our entire management team we wasted tons of money on 2 black belts that did their initial projects, which were widely ridiculed and a huge waste of time and money, and no more. And at the same time we often ignored using fundamental, basic quality tools and methodologies (like Ishikawa’s basic 7, PDCA, 5-whys, etc.) to attack the many problems that were allowed to continue to negatively affect us month in and month out and in many cases still affect us 4 years later. We had black belt projects going while having over a hundred open and past-due CARs. Now tell me that makes sense!

In a situation like that when anyone tells me we need six-sigma I know they are snake oil salesmen.

 

[Miner]

Do you have anyone in your company responsible for identifying and assigning projects to these belts. It sounds like they may have been left on their own to come up with projects. We have champions assigned in each business and each factory location that identify worthwhile projects and assign them to belts.

These projects must make a significant improvement in productivity, quality or throughput. They must also be focused on chronic, systemic issues. Sporadic issues are handled as you indicate using 8D, 5 why, PDCA, etc. Our program is still delivering strong after 11 years.

 

[BradM]

Great points made by everybody here. While I believe in the tools/ methodology of Six Sigma, there just seems to be so much baggage that comes along in companies when that phrase is uttered.

A few years back I was able to attend a dissertation proposal (and believe it or not, it was extremely interesting..) of a woman who was working with a higher-end hotel group. She did not divulge the name; but I would suspect something like Hilton/ Ritz-Carlton. Her initial findings were that a number of customers were dissatisfied with the level of assistance they were receiving from employees. Likewise, there was a lot of frustration on the part of the employees dealing with customers who had issues. So... as long as everything was routine and ordinary, all was well. However, if there was any kind of issue (of any kind), the wheels fell off.

What this researcher found was a very limited/ "closed" training set the employees received. They were taught the company principles and such, but not... how to deal with excursions.

So they develop a simple set of responses/approaches to most common issues. And most importantly, points in the service encounter when the employee needed to get a manager.

The numbers increased dramatically. Employees were much happier; as they felt more empowered and less stressed to take care of the customer First Line. Too, they didn't feel threatened or frowned upon when they needed to get a manager. Customers were happier, as they felt their simple requests were handled quickly and efficiently, without every single thing becoming a major ordeal.

I'm not sure if this project would ever be "Six Sigma" blessed in most organizations. However, this was a great project and used many of the tools from the SS skillset.

If we could somehow focus attention on Process Improvements, and less about the hype, the service industry could benefit significantly from Six Sigma.

 

[Miner]

Any tool, misused, can be a boat anchor instead of a life saver. Consultants tend to oversell any product that they deliver. SS is scalable.

The key points are:

• DEFINE: What's the problem? Get Voice of Customer and define the goal.
• MEASURE: What is the process's current performance baseline? Are your measurements any good?
• ANALYZE: What factor(s) in your process move the needle?
• IMPROVE: Move the needle using those factors.
• CONTROL: Maintain the gains.

It's that simple. The tools just support those goals. If you can identify the factors in the process using a fishbone diagram, use that instead of a DOE.

I have my idea for a new blog series.

 

[Mike S.]

Any tool, misused, can be a boat anchor instead of a life saver. Consultants tend to oversell any product that they deliver.

Right.

Too often 6S is sold as "you must acquire all these tools and use them all or it is not really 6S."

Remember the Craftsman tool sets that used to be sold in massive sets -- like a 400 piece set for $499? Well, who would use all, or even most, of those tools regularly? In reality 20% of the tools were probably adequate for 80% of the work needing done.

Now imagine being told you have to buy and use the ¾ drive click-type torque wrench when the vast majority of the work, and all of the most urgent work that you have to do, involves driving phillips screws and tightening some 3/8 nuts and hammering a few dowel pins.

That is my experience with 6S. YMMV.

 

[Miner]

Lean Six Sigma is a methodology. The tools are just that, tools used to support the methodology.

Most consultants have a standard training course, do not understand their customer's needs and therefore do not tailor their program to suit the customer.

A corporate training program such as the one I work in has understanding of our company and more freedom to tailor a program. We have a wide range of needs. Manufacturing needs a lot of the traditional tools, including DOE, while the transactional areas do not. To some extent, I can assess the makeup of a particular class and emphasize the tools more appropriate to a given area. At the same time however, I have to recognize that there is frequent movement between manufacturing and transactional areas, so I must cover all the tools so a belt is interchangeable.

However, if a company was 100% transactional, I would tailor the program to address the needs of that company, dropping unnecessary tools.

Bottom line: It's your company, own the program. Don't let the program own you.

p.s. Regarding the Craftsman sets. I agree. However, as a DIYer, I eventually run into the 20% job and have to buy the tool anyway. Remember the slogan: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later"?

 

[Mike S.]

p.s. Regarding the Craftsman sets. I agree. However, as a DIYer, I eventually run into the 20% job and have to buy the tool anyway. Remember the slogan: "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later"?

Yes.

But I imagine you would perform the overdue oil change, fix the leaking transmission oil plug, and replace the nearly-bald tires on your truck before installing a lift kit, a new performance tuner chip, and new camshaft. I only wish we were ready for the latter.....

 

[Miner]

True. That's why it is necessary for a person or group to create a project hopper that is prioritized by risk and impact to the business. The projects should be assigned and the appropriate approach used. That may or may not be Six Sigma.