iSixSigma

Companies where six sigma has failed

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Companies where six sigma has failed

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37008

    Sameera Singh
    Member

    I would like to know the name of fortune 500 companies that are not using six sigma
    I would alos like to know names of companies and statistical figures showing loss or failure in companies using six sigma

    0
    #108025

    Martínez
    Participant

    Sameera,
    Six Sigma never fails! It may be possible ,however, that the initiative fails to meet all its stated objectives. Now to expand my reply further:
    Six Sigma can be and is used by organizations in three different ways- 1)At the tactical level 2) As a strategy (strategic level) and 3) To transform the organization completely (Cultural change)
    Now all the great examples that you get to hear e.g. Motorola, Allied, GE and similar others are all examples of Six Sigma which started as a strategy (Motorola to reduce defects/ GE to increase customer focus and leadership development) and then became almost cultural for these organizations!
    Some companies fail to continue the initiative beyond the tactical level whereby they train some staff, get some projects done and then falter on the way to convert the whole organization in Six Sigma way.
    There are many and I have seen two myself from very close. (I would not like to mention their names as this would not be proper in  my view.) What we must look at though is to find out the key factors which are responsible for such occurences. In both the examples that I have witnessed the one and the main reason was that the Top Leader changed within a year of launch and the new leader did not take up Six Sigma as his top priority. There are many other factors and in case you are interested go over to the Culture Evolution section of this site and you will find a lot of info there!

    0
    #108028

    Anonymous
    Guest

    One that springs to mind is Ford. Other automotive companies that have attempted SS with limited success are: Landrover and Jaguar.
    By way of contrast, Toyota goes from strength to strength, although they recently expressed some concern that some of their ‘old hands’ are retiring soon.
    More generally, it is well known that Motorola is in a bit of a mess and their mobile phones have one of the worst reputations for reliability.

    0
    #108031

    Peppe
    Participant

    Good questions Mr. Singh. Could be interesting also to know the comapnies that goes in “Fortune 500” only after implemented sixsigma program.
    Mr. Andy U, very nice details !
    Regards, Peppe 

    0
    #108039

    Mikel
    Member

    What nonsense!

    0
    #108060

    Stickler
    Member

    What we must look at though is to find out the key factors which are responsible for such occurences. In both the examples that I have witnessed the one and the main reason was that the Top Leader changed within a year of launch and the new leader did not take up Six Sigma as his top priority.
    I have to wonder what kind of measurement system was used, how was the hypothesis tested, and what’s the p value, etc. I don’t mean to be a stickler. I do it too. How do we balance the importance of using actual data vs the ease of recognizing what is obvious (to us)?

    0
    #108066

    Fer
    Participant

     
    My little experience tells me that SS dramatically fails whenever it’s used only as career driver
    This is typical of those organizations where SS is not introduced because of a precise need of improvement, but is imposed …. This is typical f some multinationals towards their acquisitions
    In many cases BB and MBB are chosen among those employees whose contribution to the office activity is not fundamental, and this happens when the managers are poorly trained and have never carried out a SS project
     In these cases it is very easy to close meaningless projects where the focus is only on financial benefits that nobody will never be able to measure

    0
    #108079

    Schuette
    Participant

    Andy,
    I’m curious about your assessment on Ford – what before/after metrics are you using to assess Ford a failure rating regarding Six Sigma?  They have been making improvement in current costs using SS, and the DFSS portion will only start to be reflected in the new products coming out in ’05.  Current business losses come from deeply ingrained management and process shortcomings that SS could not remove in the 5 short years since it started, so why do you call SS a failure so soon?  Do you have knowledge of Ford abandoning SS in any measurable way?

    0
    #108080

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Jim,
    As Fer pointed out, anyone can claim cost savings; especially in processes where there is considerable autocorrelation. Put simply, a Ford car is not a quality product, as many previous customers have found out.
    By way of contrast, a Toyota is worth every penny.
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #108081

    Praveen Gupta
    Participant

    Hello Andy:
    Could you please send me your email for discussing some topics.  My address is [email protected].
    Regards,
    praveen

    0
    #108082

    kowalewski
    Participant

    Six Sigma at Ford appears to be without the CEO’s involvement.  That itself spells out sort of failure.  Besides, there appears to be a rift between the Green Belt and Black Belts. At Ford, Six Sigma has been considered as a 5-step process improvement methodology comared to its 8-D process.  These are just soem symptoms.

    0
    #108086

    Sheri
    Member

    Sameera,
    GM doesn’t use Six Sigma.  They deploy the Shainin methodology.

    0
    #108087

    Mikel
    Member

    Yes – and it shows
    Of course so does Chrysler and it shows there
    And then Ford pretends to use Six Sigma

    0
    #108088

    RubberDude
    Member

    OK, Stan….. confess…. what do you drive?
    And remember…. your answer just might drive up the sales on those models among SS Forum “groupies” like me……

    0
    #108089

    Ken Feldman
    Participant

    Stans have already confessed that they drive Fords, including an Edsel, the last great car Ford made.  First they tried to bring back the Thunderbird…blahhhh.  Now they are trying to relive the Mustang.  Can’t wait for the rebirth of the Fairlane.

    0
    #108094

    Mikel
    Member

    Darth, I love you man, but don’t badmouth the Mustang.
    You can say anything you want about the rest of the Ford junk.

    0
    #108096

    Schuette
    Participant

    Andy,
    You didn’t answer my question with metrics. You could say “limited success” like Jaguar, and I would buy that, but you can’t call the current on-going SS program at Ford a failure without defining failure and providing data. Many automotive experts rate the Focus – which has the benefit of many SS projects – to be one of the best automotive values out there. Judge better when the new Mustang and Ford 500(the quality, not the styling) come out – they were born during the beginnings of SS, so they should be a better indicator of SS impact.You know, my last 2 GE major kitchen appliances, and my GE cordless phone were pieces of cr*p – that doesn’t make SS at GE a failure.

    0
    #108100

    J P Rothery
    Participant

    Hi
     
    I was thinking about ford. And maybe Ford are deliberate building in defects with their products like their cars falling apart after five years or are out of date before they hits the streets using Six Sigma. Myth or truth? I was told a long time ago the some American companies build failure in their products after a number of years so the customer would have to buy again providing more revenue for the supplier.
     
    I think one could use anti Six Sigma to achieve this revenue seeking goal.
     
    I for my part have never owned American car only German and I am currently a BMW owner.
     
    J. P. Rothery

    0
    #108101

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Jim,
    Your point about metrics is well-taken. However, it seems to me that you are using a very tired SS argument – ‘just wait until you see the results of our programme.’
    By way of contrast, Motorola’s ‘original’ Six Sigma program was not as pedantic or inflexible, and they achieved their goals in 1987 – in just three years – and just in time for Dr. Harry to take credit! The ‘original’ method included Shainin Techniques, Taguchi Methods, and Multivariate Data Analysis, and we did not suffer the ignominities of Y=F(X) or DPMO.
    One of the reasons that Ford will not be successful is because the Ford Production System (sic) does not use the ‘one-by-one confirmation’ of TPS. This implies that component ‘matching’  will remain a problem – irrespective of any apparent process improvements and claims of ‘savings.’ (Jigging components into ‘matching’ groups is not consistent with ‘modern SS,’ so these are the types of defects will continue to underlie various ‘reliability’ problems.)
    You might find the following links of interest:
    http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc5_20030305.htm ( you will have to read this carefully as it suggests ‘cost savings’ but admits poor quality
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_2001_Dec_1/ai_80494687
    With regard to Landrover, their difficulties have been described in the press recently, and Jaguar are suffering a similar fate.
    Six Sigma is not a complete quality system and is in need of some improvement. Lean (TPS Jidoka) and Six Sigma (natural process capability) are the antithesis of each other, which is why we need to understand the apparent contradiction, rather than trying to blend to two together.
    Regards,
    Andy
     
     

    0
    #108102

    Anonymous
    Guest

    J. P.,
    BMW’s are fine cars – almost as fine a product as Frnziskaner. But I’m told that the model shop in Munich has about 5,000 employees!!!
    I don’t believe Ford intend to build defects into their cars, it just a question of chance …
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #108103

    J P Rothery
    Participant

    Hi Andy
     
    I also do not believe Ford would build defects into there Cars these days.
     
    Just being a bit paranoid.
     
    Yes you can¡¯t a better thirst quencher than a cold Frnziskaner on a hot Munich afternoon.
     
    Bit lost on the model shop and 5000 employees would you elaborate.
     
    Thanks
     
    JP

    0
    #108104

    Anonymous
    Guest

    JP:
    The last time I was in Munich, I met my friend’s downstairs neighbour – a very friendly German couple. She had recently been laid off by Siemens Balanstrasse and he from BMW, which was a really unfortunate as those apartments don’t come cheap.
    Anyway, he told me that he used to work in the BMW ‘model shop’ – where they ‘shape’ new car designs. When I asked him how many employees were up there he told me 5,000. Well that bowled me over, and thinking that he might mean all departments on the site; I asked again and he confirmed the same answer!?
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #108105

    J P Rothery
    Participant

    Thanks Andy
    Your answer leads me to the obvious question for you or anybody else that might know do BMW body design division use DOE or DFSS and if not the aforementioned what do they use to develop the excellent designs they produce?
    JP
     

    0
    #108106

    Anonymous
    Guest

    This was what I wanted to find out. The answer I got was that he didn’t, although he was familiar with the approach. What we jokingly agreed was that in a wind tunnel it was usually the shape of the radiator that determined the final shape of the whole car, which explains why so many different products have similar shapes.
    Of course, since much of the design work is done on CAD, it is entirely possible that someone might use DOE.
    Andy

    0
    #108107

    J P Rothery
    Participant

    Hi Andy
     
    Thanks for your kindly response. The following is directed generally but feel free to answer.
     
    If one were to use DOE in the design of a cars like BMWs, how many would there be? (Thousands?) And would you be able to use some off the other Six Sigma tools to manage the DOEs? Not just to manage the sheer volume also the relationship between DOEs and A macro view ensuring a good if not excellent design.
     
    JP

    0
    #108109

    Anonymous
    Guest

    JP,
    I’ve generally had a good experience using simulation. I am also an advocate of Taguchi Methods, which is just as well because that makes simulation straightforward, because one can use the ‘manufacturing variation’ as a combination noise design.
    Let me give an example. One of the most successful projects I worked on was the design of a film handling system. This of course is what is known as a ‘sub-assembly.’ Therefore, my first step would be to breakdown a car into a number of ‘sub-assemblies and the investigate the ‘ideal function’ of each assembly. This corresponds to an investigation of energy transfer, or the transfer of work.
    Now many argue that simulation is not accurate enough; but I believe that these days most software and even ‘cardboard models’ are accurate enough to investigate the technological fundamentals – especially when used in conjuction with DOE.
     Once you have a design, one can always confirm a few cells with real sub-assemblies. This also offers the benefit of not having to run long and tortuous, mechanical MTBF studies. Once you know the ideal function, in my experience it can be tested relatively quickly. (We reduced a film handling system test time based on failure rates from six months to matter of weeks.)
    In summary, breakdown the system into a number of sub-assemblies. Investigate the ‘ideal function’ of each sub-assmbly, and perform a ‘robust design’ on each sub-system – a condition where non-linearlity has been used to reduce variance transmission, and scaling has been used to minimise the proportion of variance.
    If you choose this path, then you will not be unduly concerned about ‘sample size’ from the point of view of cost.
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #108110

    GC
    Participant

    Dear Mr. Andy U, I agree with your (taguchi) approach. Your concise description of flow to be used is very clear.
    Please, let me ask for your opinion on a different situation about Ford. Maybe you know that in EU Ford Focus was one of most awarded (reliability and design) and sold car of  last years (not so expansive) and Ford is now renewing it. Well, how do you explane, so different performances of different Ford’s branch ?
    Best Regards, GC

    0
    #108112

    Anonymous
    Guest

    GC,
    I believe that the Ford Focus came in second in class, behind Nissan’s Almera. The average repair bill for the Almera was £80 and £147 for the Focus, which tends to support your contention that the Focus is a good car.
    It would certainly be interesting to find out what has contributed this its success – the implementation of SS, or the FPS.
    I have seen some good work on breaking systems and other sub-assemblies by Ford engineers. My original comments were made to stimulate debate – do we really believe that SS is perfect and that all we have to do is gain senior executive support and then deploy it by ‘pushing’ it down people’s throats. I think not!
    Regards,
    Andy
     
     

    0
    #108115

    GC
    Participant

    Andy, thanks for your answer.
    I’m in line with you and your thoughts are likes mine. 
    I hope someone have more details, to share, on that.
    Regards, GC

    0
    #108173

    Speedgeek
    Member

    I’ve worked as a Tier 1 supplier product engineer for both Ford and the Honda/Toyota and I’d say myth.  Ford’s failures are a result of the way it develops and manufactures its products.
    The difference between the two (from my experience) was that the Japanese had a much higher product standard than did Ford.  For example, the product supplied to the Japanese was required to pass a million cycles on a particular test, when we tried to market this same assembly to the American manufacturers, we were priced out of the market, because they only required 100,000 cycles.  Yet, the Japanese sold the vehicle at a profit, while Ford lost money on every unit of their competing product.
    The product I worked on for Ford, for example, never passed its durability requirement, yet there was very little concerned expressed, because fixing the problem would drive up the cost.
    The difference boils down to lowest possible cost, a lack of engineering discipline/attention to detail, short term thinking and a ‘hero culture’ on one hand and highly disciplined/regimented development with a focus on long term quality (making the best possible product will, in the long term, result in a competetive advantage and higher profitablility)on the other.
    Don’t mean to trash Ford, just my experience.

    0
    #108174

    J P Rothery
    Participant

    Hi
     
    An example of poor design in some of the earlier Ford models and may still apply to some current models I don¡¯t know, was the back door window would not roll all the way down making it extremely uncomfortable to rest ones arm on the open window. Even my Fathers small 1970 Toyota did not have that problem. Why would Ford cut corners like that? I noticed another problem in Ford Tempos was if you rolled down any window while traveling 60k plus any lose paper I.E. business documents would be sucked out the window. My friend learned the hard way when I was a passenger in his car I rolled the window down traveling on the busy 401 in Ontario and a pile of his critical documents shot out the window and became unrecoverable. He got very angry with me but I just said why did you buy a Ford? That would not happen in my VW Golf at any speed.
     
    I suppose my question is how do Ford spec their VOCs and also how do they define the level of operability and functionality in their cars.
     
    JP

    0
    #108175

    Ritz
    Member

    Having worked in the automotive industry, I think it is more accurate to say that all auto manufacturers build in obsolescence…and they build it in at different rates.  In my opinion, it is a stretch to say that they build in defects.  The technology exists to build cars (and parts) that could conceivably last 20 years with little maintenance, but the cost to design, engineer, and manufacture those cars (parts) would lead to a very small economic demand (who would pay $100k for a Focus?).  Parallel this with PC assemblers and PC reliability.
    And yes, Ford’s success with Focus is due to both FPS and 6-Sigma.

    0
    #108177

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Speedgeek,
    I personally welcome your insight. It’s about time some people stopped kidding themselves ..
    Andy

    0
    #108179

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Ritz,
    How do you know that Ford’s success is due to FPS and 6-sigma? Do you have some inside information? The reason I ask is because I’m trying to figure out the relationship between GDT (geometric dimensional tolerancing) and 6-sigma design principles.
    I am also curious why FPS requires 6-sigma, but TPS apparently does not? Is this likely to give Ford and advantage over Toyota sometime in the future. If so how?
    Also, does the FPS use ‘one-by-one confirmation and does the line stop when a problem is found?
    Thanks in anticipation.
    Andy

    0
    #108195

    Sheri
    Member

    Is it possible that Ford doesn’t want their vehicles to last more than say 100,000 miles?  Maybe they are banking on the fact that some customers don’t expect a car to last longer than 100K miles.  So why over design the vehicle?  Maybe the thought is that Ford feels there are still enough consumers out there that will only buy “American” so they can still get away with producing a less reliabel vehicle.
    Just a thought…

    0
    #108197

    RubberDude
    Member

    Anyone care to bring the “Tucker” automobile into the picture?
    My opinion, one of the major differences in the automotive industry is the way the VOC is perceived/accomplished.  While American companies want to rely on J D Powers statistics and looked at “style”, the Japanese and other Asians have listened for a long time to the real voice of what the real customer wanted, needed, and expected.  Proof of that, of course, was in the ’70s-’80s when the big three were still rolling “battleships” and “silk purses” off the assembly line and Toyota and Datsun began to take over the market with practical and reliable units, meeting the needs of the customer.
    Preston Tucker was a visionary that set the stage for the future of automakers in the late ’40s, but was too eager to “force” his innovations into the marketplace.  Of course, the big three ate him alive then copied his “style” and introduced their versions when the time was right.
    Ford, GM, and Chrysler still seem to “follow the leader” when it comes to innovation.  But they are still inept at understanding quality and reliability, opting for “sale-ability” instead.  The acquisitions, mergers, and joint ventures of the past few years have helped, but the “old dinosaurs” still have hard heads when it comes to major change in their thinking.
    Of course, we can throw Lee Iococca into the mix as well…..
    Just my opinion….. for what it’s worth…..

    0
    #108198

    Ritz
    Member

    Andy U,
    I know because I used to work at Ford – not on the engineering / mfg side of the house, but close enough to the people who were.  I will preface my remarks by stating that it has been several years since I was at Ford, so some of my comments may be out-dated.  I welcome corrections.
    I can’t add much commentary to the GDT and 6-Sigma design – I’m much more familiar with Design than GDT.
    It is my belief that FPS requires the 6-sigma addition because Ford does not have the extensive culture attached to continual improvement that Toyota does.  The TPS has had quality as a fundamental component to their processes for 40 years, Ford began it’s first real steps in the 80’s.  I don’t think the addition of 6-sigma into the FPS will give Ford an advantage.  The domestics are still playing catch-up in many areas – 6-Sigma will help Ford narrow the gap (if management stays out of the way), but it will not provide competitive advantage in the near future…in thte next 5-7 years anyway.  My rationale is that Ford management has not fundamentally committed to driving the appropriate metrics into the mfg and engineering worlds.  Most performance metrics are extremely heavy on the cost side, and the long-term implications continually dog their quality programs as a result.
    FPS is flexible enough (in theory) to allow the line stoppages, but it is rarely ever done due to the ways in which plant managers are incentivized. 
    Ritz

    0
    #108201

    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thanks Ritz …
    The only ex-Ford engineer I worked with tried to use SPC to monitor ‘process assembly times’ and sub-assembly defect categories!!! We dumped all that when we introduced Single-flow (Ikko Nagashi.)
    More recently, I came across a company that manufactures plastic medical inhaler devices. Some of the components have to be formed with up to twenty four separate process steps, all dependent on the previous step. Then each of the components have to ‘match’ to obtain the correct interference and alignment. This is why I was interested in the relationship between GDT and SS. Although I like a challenge, I’m really glad that someone else got that contract!
    Regards,
    Andy

    0
    #108209

    Ritz
    Member

    Andy,
    Agreed – the variation at Ford was quite high.  Some of the brightest I’ve worked with were there, and some of the not-so-brightest.
    Also agreed on the medical inhaler devices – not my core strength.  Always want to learn more, but I’d rather watch that one from the sidelines!
    Regards,
    Ritz
     

    0
    #146644

    Interested User
    Participant

    How about FORD?

    0
Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.