This is a business theory/application to make businesses run more efficiently. I think it was developed for assembly lines, but it has spread to office environments. I was considering joining a friend of mine at the company where he works, but he says they started using Six Sigma and everyone is miserable, from top to bottom. Does this work? Why would the staff be miserable?
Where I work, we did Six Sigma for a while (mainly for one particular problem). It worked while we were implementing it. I can imagine that if you weren't solving an appropriate problem with it that it could be a pain. We used it, and our problem was that the higher ups were only 90% in favor of the solution we found. They wouldn't go all the way with it, which was disappointing.
I've known a number of people who adopted the program in their organization. At the time, I owned a fairly large manufacturing company with two facilities in separate states and considered adopting it myself. From their perspective, Six Sigma created an inflexible environment dominated by never ending meetings and discussions. One related an experience where a component in a product needed to be moved slightly to allow for easier installation. Three months later, they were still going through the process of facilitating the change in design. In my organization, it would have taken one meeting, a little discussion, and the simple change would have been implemented. Nothing wrong with developing people and following the "Black Belt" principle of having "experts", but what kept me from moving forward is that Six Sigma creates a process driven organization that looses sight of the most important thing to an organization - the customer. That's my two cents.
Having used it, I agree with the above. However, if you are working for a bureaucracy (where you are going to have the meetings for months to make a change regardless), it gives a better justification for changing the status quo. If you had rational leadership (like you), it's not needed.
Thank you for the compliment. There are some who worked for me over the years who might disagree on the "rational" part. I agree a large bureaucracy could benefit from a more objective driven process. That might cut down on the frequency of having meetings to discuss meetings. In the end, I don't object to lean principles and continuous improvement. Those should be objectives of any well run organization. What will always concern me about modern corporate structure and operating principles is the danger the focus on procedure and process inhibits an organization from hearing what the customer is saying.
I've heard it's micromanagement on steroids: white collar workers with bachelor's and master's degrees getting timed on how long they're in the bathroom. That's just one of a thousand complaints. It seems better suited for an assembly line than an office environment.
If used properly it can be a good thing. When I worked for an oilfield services company building hydraulic control systems, we ended up building manufacturing cells. As you worked in the cell, the individual parts were available as you moved down the line. It worked as long as management left it up to the individual how they were going to proceed. For instance, I was the only one who knew how to build and repair dynalines. My supervisor wanted me to get rid of the 3/4 and 1 inch drive socket sets that I had for these systems. We only get the about once or twice a year, there for they weren't necessary to keep. So I hid them in a locker, when we got one in, I didn't have the proper tools and told him so. He told me to write up a list and he would purchase what I needed. When I showed him the price he about choked. One socket was $350 and I needed 2 as well as the wrenches and a torque wrench that went to 3500 lbs. That was almost $1500. He was pleased when I told him that I had not gotten rid of my dynalines tools, I just hid them.
In addition to timing people in the bathroom, they micromanage to the point where reports are printed on any employee whose computer mouse remains still for more than three minutes. So they hire professionals with a bachelor's or a master's degree, and then you time them in the bathroom and report them to management for discipline if their mouse is still for more than three minutes? This sounds like an episode of "The Office", but it's real. It's how Six Sigma rolls.
I've never been an office rat, I only used my computer to complete test data and print test sheets to go with my systems. We did have time standards which usually I did better than 100%. Meaning if the time standards was 1 hour per system, i usually could do it in about 45 - 50 minutes. That's, building, loading, testing, recording test data and turning in to shipping.
I don't think I'll be going to the company that employs this system. I'm 56, I have a master's degree, and I've been doing my job for 31 years. I don't need someone with a stopwatch timing me when I'm in the bathroom. God help us if Six Sigma is our future.
