iSixSigma

GE Healthcare Lean Six Sigma

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General GE Healthcare Lean Six Sigma

Viewing 41 posts - 1 through 41 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48641

    MLL
    Participant

    What has happened to GE Six Sigma? I was contacted for an MLL position within Healthcare and I was shocked by the low level of competency required to be in their program. Their training is bare bones and their is little provision for coaching and mentoring.Is three weeks of combined lean and six sigma training now becoming the standard?Are other organizations allowing BBs to lead VSM exercises, by themselves after 3 weeks of training?Shouldn’t MBBs and MLLs have training and expertise in facilitating strategic alignments sessions?Are the number of VSMs created and kaizen events held good measures of a programs success? I don’t think so!Is Net Promoter Score more than closing dissatisfied customer comment sheets? Whatever happened to good and bad profits?Wow, what a huge disappointment?

    0
    #164650

    Dr. Scott
    Participant

    MLL,
    I will answer your questions as best i can.
    Is three weeks of combined lean and six sigma training now becoming the standard? For someone like you, I suspect three weeks of GE’s mandatory training is sufficient. But be advised, all LSS training and consulting advisors are trying to shorten the time due to client cost (or in many cases what the bad training and consulting suppliers charge).
    Are other organizations allowing BBs to lead VSM exercises, by themselves after 3 weeks of training? Yes, Unfortunately. To meet an OGSM, not profits (see below).
    Shouldn’t MBBs and MLLs have training and expertise in facilitating strategic alignments sessions? Yes, though that is a difficult skill to train. My Opinion is either you have the ability (from experience) or you don’t. So I am divided whether to support “Change Management” training. To me, LSS training, if well done (though seldom is) addresses this issue.
    Are the number of VSMs created and kaizen events held good measures of a programs success? I don’t think so! Unfortunately, too many companies reward their directors and/or managers on how many employees are trained, certified, or how many VSMs I will create, etc. But they put less importance on what the results of all this was/is. This method is often based on OGSMs (Objectives, Goal, Strategy, Metric). Seldom do OGSMs say “I will create this much value (cost or quality)”, rather they say I will do ……. OGSM.
    Is Net Promoter Score more than closing dissatisfied customer comment sheets? Whatever happened to good and bad profits? I am sorry to say I am not familiar with “Net Promoter Score”, leave me a site and I will have a look to learn. As far as good and bad profits goes, that is what we are here for. We are here “to make good numbers go up and bad numbers go down, for more money and more happy customers.” At least that is how I have always phrased it. Maybe I should get a copyright, but spread the word as much as you wish.
    Bottom line is, what you have shared is, as you said, a great disappointment.
    Good Luck,
    Dr. Scott

    0
    #164657

    Brandon
    Participant

    Dr. S – good post as usual. Couple questions –
    Are there not other far more effective means of lowering training costs than to shorten the training time? ie; blended programs – eLearning, classroom, tutorial…. Isn’t it amazing that SS training companies can’t be more inventive that to just shorten training?
    2nd, how do you tell the “bad training & consulting suppliers” from the “good” ones?

    0
    #164661

    Dr. Scott
    Participant

    Brandon,
    Good to hear from you again. The answer to your first question is “yes”. It generally requires categorical cost reductions due to either better planning on the client’s side or lowering of price on the “consultant’s” or supplier’s side. This usually means fewer days or lower price per day.
    To answer your second question, in my opinion it depends on name and reputation. That does not mean merely the name and reputation of the company you are hiring, but also of those who they plan to deploy in your company. I would look at it as somewhat of an interview process. When the supplier’s “account director” comes in the make the final sale, s/he should bring the goods (trainers and consultants) with them along with their resumes. Then I would check them out, not just take the word of the account director. But to do this well the company needs an experienced Six Sigma expert to help make such evaluations. This can be done by creating a position (if you are mid to large size) or using a consultant that you have already heard has been around the block.
    However, there is never a guarantee that you make the right decision. But based on name and reputation, I can name three of the top companies that I would not give peanuts to, much less my company’s money.
    Thanks for the questions,
    Dr. Scott
     

    0
    #164664

    Brandon
    Participant

    I know, I know. How about OSSS?

    0
    #164666

    Brandon
    Participant

    Well, Fake Brandon – shows what you know – OSSS doesn’t do training or consulting – just licenses the IP.
    PS: Their IP is based on the original model – BB 5 wks, GB 2 wks, etc.

    0
    #164669

    Dr. Scott
    Participant

    Fake or not, what about it? Do you think that just reading faster or slower makes a difference?

    0
    #164670

    Brandon
    Participant

    I don’t understand your question or the fake brandon’s assertion.
    We were talking about training firms modifying their training based on the need to lower costs to the client.
    Apples & oranges…
     

    0
    #164673

    Dr. Scott
    Participant

    Brandon,
    If the other is a fake then report the other to the isixsigma administrator. I am really starting to get tired of the entire bull in here. For example, threads being closed because of nonsense, people claiming to be someone else, etc. For all I know, someone here is pretending to be me, though I doubt they know enough to pull it off.
    Regards,
    Dr.Scott

    0
    #164678

    Dr. Scott
    Participant

    Brandon,
    My point is training material access has little to do with how long it takes to perform the training. One could take the entire OSSS material (or another set of materials) and run through it in a single week if they wanted. Or, they could take eight weeks. Time is not the issue. Effectiveness of the training IS the issue.
    I think I answered the original post earlier in this thread. Some do it fast now, and others do it slow. The decision is too often based on cost and meeting nonsense goals, like an OGSM regarding number of people trained instead of money saved or revenue increased or customer satisfaction improvement.
    Regarding my question “what about it?”, I meant to ask exactly that. What about OSSS? What makes it better or worse? What does that have to do with time (which I gather was the question or statement of the original post)? What about any other training package or consulting firm?
    The point I am trying to make is that it all depends on the true reason for buying either, and what the return on the investment is.
    I am also irritated with this whole “fake” thing going on in here.
    Does that clarify things?
    Regards,
    Dr. Scott

    0
    #164693

    Be Real
    Participant

    GE Healthcare’s Lean Six Sigma program has been struggling for many years now. It’s no surprise that the program now resembles a TQM training program from the the late 80’s.Despite their poorly trained and poorly experienced MBBs, BBs, and MLLs, they still report “great” financial benefits. The program is burdened by a lack of integrity and ethics it exhibited in the past.Another issue that they never addressed is sustainability. Too many projects were and still to this day are flashes in the pan.The useless metrics being reported as success factors, such as, number of VSMs done, number of kaizens held are classic Milwaukee going after something not too difficult to achieve or monitor.The program is visionless. As the Milwaukee “Simplification” team continues to use force and intimidation to have the business accept and adopt the six sigma agenda, the business units driven by revenue have been able to hold off the useless, non value added aggression from Milwaukee.If they knew what they were doing in Milwaukee, they would try to create a demand for their services by having appropriately trained people in not only the tools but also in strategy and sustainability mechanisms, especially in the services side of the business.

    0
    #164699

    Brandon
    Participant

    Dr. S – I agree. I did report “him” about 5 or 6 weeks ago and the posts pretending to be me disappeared. I presumed iSS tracked the IP Address and notified him to knock it off. Apparently it worked for a while – then he snuck one in yesterday.
    Don’t even know who he is nor does he know me – but he gets a kick out of trying to harass me for some reason.

    0
    #164701

    Brandon
    Participant

    Dr. S – yes, I understand the points you have made and I believe I agree. Pricing pressures have been responded to by most training firms by shortening the course time – thereby lowering the training fee and associated reimbursable costs. To do that they have reduced the content and/or the quality of the knowledge transfer.
    I didn’t introduce OSSS to this discussion – I wouldn’t have – there is no relevance. The “Fake” did, I guess in an effort to discredit me – for what reason I have no idea.
    Once mentioned I felt compelled to state they do not train nor do they consult – they simply license IP. AND, the coursework they license is built on the original robust course content. How rapidly or in what manner one might choose to utilize their IP is up to the licensee.

    0
    #164921

    The Hunter
    Member

    As a Healthcare L6S head hunter, I have noticed that the competencies of GE Healthcare’s L6S BBs has substantially declined. In the past, I had no problems finding qualified GE candidates for my clients. Now, my clients don’t want anything to do with a GE Healthcare candidate.
    The comments I hear are that the GE BBs and MBBs education and experience are horrible.
    As I screen these candidates they can talk a good game but they are not competent in the basics if either lean or six sigma.
    For example, many of the candidates can’t;
    1. do an gage r&r of an attribute gage r&r
    2. do simple hypothesis test – hypothesis testing has been reduced it an overview in there training
    3. articulate the 1.5 sigma shift
    4. discuss the copq
    5. discuss the difference between fty vs, rty
    6. calculate attribute capability or non normal capability. Their answer to service capability is the P95 number (Wow)
    7. tell you the math operations that could be performed for the various data types.
    8. and so on.GE Healthcare BBs Lean Six Sigma training is what Green Belt training used to be. The MBBs are equally incapable as the BBs.On the lean side. The BBs and MBBs have little competencies in lean deployment and appropriate use of VSM or lean tools.
    The notion of make a process visible, stable, simplified and standardizers is totally missing. BBs are taught and encouraged to do VSMs and identify kaizen events without fully understanding of having valid process data. To them visible is a VSM (ha ha). Stabilizing a process before improving it isn’t taught nor is it expected.
    MBBs and BBs are out there selecting and doing projects for whoever will sponsor an event not projects that are strategic in nature. It’s not uncommon for the MBBs and BBs to have no knowledge of their organization’s strategy or measures of success.
    The competencies and experience is even worst on the transactional side. The MBBs and BBs can’t translate the lean manufacturing concepts to a transactional environment.

    0
    #164923

    The Hunter
    Member

    Here is another example of GE Healthcare’s mess. I just off the phone with an GE Healthcare MBB.When asked how their success is measured? His response was by the number of VSM created and Kaizen events held. Typical answer!When I asked if he had done transactional work and what the measure of success was, he said the P95 of the cycle time is the only metric that the L6S is interested in. Not lead time, not backlog, not span, but p95.When I asked him to describe the improvement model. He couldn’t. When I asked him to describe how he stabilizes a process. He said 5S. I said describe how the 5s was used, he couldn’t. Once again, a typical response.When asked how the process was made visible, he said by creating a VSM. When asked how he know the process was performing poorly, he said they could get metrics on the processes performance, MONTHLY, not daily. I asked so is the process really visible , he said, yes! There is a VSM!These answers are typical!! My sample size is more than 50. These are not candidates that are being kicked out of the program or considered losers. Many have been referred to me as well respected and admired.

    0
    #164924

    Ward
    Participant

    It is a sad observation. Even sadder, is that those observations are probably not limited to GE Health Care.
    If you follow any of the discussion forums, on this site, you quickly discover people miss the whole concept. People confuse Pareto charts for histograms, scatter plots for time series graphs. They also jump into hypothesis testing when it is not necessary. They got blinded by p-values! They blindly interpret relative to .05, but can’t tell you the consequences of rejecting at .06. It is not their fault. It is the fault of the group that is certifying these individuals.

    0
    #164928

    The Hunter
    Member

    You’re right. These people shouldn’t be certified.
    Believe it or not, as much chatter and dislike there is for ASQ CSSBB, I’m finding them to be much more knowledgeable and capable than the GE Healthare BBs and MBBs.
    There seems to me a mass exodus of BBs and MBBs from GE Healthcare, too bad I can’t make any money off the exodus.

    0
    #164931

    The Hunter
    Member

    What Is Net Promoter?Net Promoter is a discipline by which companies profitably grow by focusing on their customers. A successful Net Promoter program includes 5 elements: 1) metrics proven to link to growth; 2) leadership practices that instill customer focus, passion, and values; 3) organizational strategies to ensure adoption; 4) integration with core business processes, and 5) operational systems to support the initiative.Supposedly, GE Healthcare was an early adopter of NPS. However, the initiative was watered down for a quick and easy deployment.
    The GE method is to focus on calling customers and addressing the concerns the customers characterized as detractor. This led to people running around trying to address every customers whim, even those of potentially unprofitable customers. They never took the time to identify customers who were both detractors and unprofitable. Knowing these customer is a key element of NPS.
    Another more shocking discovery for me was that no one within GE Healthcare took the time to identify the metric that they would use to measure growth. To this day if you ask a BB or MBB how growth is measured they can’t answer the question.

    0
    #164932

    Tamlyn
    Member

    I’ve apparently missed all of the ‘chatter and dislike’ for the ASQ CSSBB program – could you fill me in please?  I’d like to know if this is a viable route for those wishing to obtain CSSBB Certification but would be hesitant to recommend it if there are valid opinions as to why the preparation / education demonstrated by such has not proved to be acceptable by peers’ standards.
    Thanks

    0
    #164934

    Brandon
    Participant

    Sorry to say it AGAIN – but much of what you have described, Hunter – and I take it as qualified input based on what you do, is due to our lack of a central association setting standards. We have no stds in our industry – pretty amazing for a bunch of people who make their living talking about data and measurement and control plans……et al.

    0
    #164936

    Inside
    Participant

    Come on, GE and GE Healthcare’s Six Sigma program has been a joke for the last couple of years. The organization lacks a vision, competencies, and the leadership to get anything meaningful done.
    They are about short term fluffy metrics and projects. Of course, the BBs and MBBs are unaware of the Lean Six Sigma deployment, there isn’t one.
    The six sigma leadership team ripped off toyota’s model thinking they were smart enough to emulate it.

    0
    #164943

    not a doc
    Participant

    I am a former GEMS/GEHC employee.  If you have not worked there I assure you are unlikely unable to determine the true successes Six Sigma and Lean have on that company. 
    GE has managed to save billions of dollars in poor quality and create new product lines that have saved 1000’s of lives.  Six Sigma and Lean still live and breathe in GE.  It has since the early 90’s and it does today.
    What GE does is to use bits and pieces of a process (pick it…either SS or Lean) and they expect to have the same sustainability.  Almost all companies work this way.  Nobody is perfect.  Process Improvement is rarely perfect.  If you say it is – you never tell the full story of your business.  It’s not always a bad thing to work this way.  They continue to make improvements. 
    In the case of GE Healthcare – let’s look at that.  They are a top player in diagnostic and clinical / biomedical services.  They continue to beat revenue year over year.  They save hospitals millions of dollars in poor quality through process improvements.  They help all of GE make their number and meet or beat earnings estimates. 
    Can GE and GEHC do a better job in Lean and in Six Sigma?  Yes.  Everyone can.  Let’s face it Toyota isn’t perfect.   A new customer survey came out on the most reliable cars.  Toyota fell from the top 5.  Yes, folks…you heard that correctly. Toyota was NOT in the top 5.  Apparently the survey firm (I can’t remember what car survey firm it was) didn’t tally the Toyota results because they always were number 1.  Until this year.  This year the customer spoke and they were less satisified with reliability.
    It’s too bad many of you have had been experiences or bad communications with GE folks on their SS program. 

    0
    #164951

    Inside
    Participant

    You have to be kidding me.
    Contact your comrades at GEMS/GEHC.
    Product quality is poor.
    Growth is poorer.
    And profitability is questionable at best.
    I’m glad to hear you had a good run but past performance is indicative of the organizations current nor future performance.
    Every dog has its day. GE Healthcare’s has come and gone.
    Profits are flat at best and OM is nil.

    0
    #164954

    mand
    Member

    I was introduced to Six Sigma at GEHC. I say introduced because the training and lack of coaching, mentoring, and etc. from GEHC didn’t provide me with the skills to be as effective as other programs. At the time, I thought it was fabulous but as they say you don’t know what you don’t know.
    In reflection, as a person who can see themselves dedicating the rest of his life to lean six sigma, my experience and time spent as a MBB at GEHC was time wasted.
    GEHC needs to decide if they’re going to drop six sigma and its mathematical rigor of for lean’s simpler approach. As the hunter mentions, the statistical rigor is gone.
    If GEHC decides to focus on lean, they have to realize the company’s culture needs to change significantly, one from focusing quarter to quarter on the top line revenue to one truly focused on the customer. I for one doesn’t believe that anyone in the organization has the courage to focus on the customer at the risk of potentially not hitting a short term quarter financial number.

    0
    #164955

    not a doc
    Participant

    You are wrong and it’s sad that you don’t know that.  Margin is great.  Growth is what companies need.  Quality & Process Improvements continue.  Biopharma is continue to grow in the industry and they are more than in the landscape. 
    Either you don’t like GE or you hear people who don’t like them.  Read the stock reports and you’ll see a different story.  You survey one person and you don’t have a consensus.  Get more facts. 

    0
    #164957

    NYSE
    Participant

    The market has corrected GE’s stock price based on the insights gained from this thread of posts. The financial markets wouldn’t know how to price GE’s stock if it wasn’t for the insights gained by the fact-based analyses of “Be Real, The Hunter, Brandon, or Dr. Scott”. The combined knowledge and brain power of these individuals has avoided a serious, unforeseen crash in the stock market. Long live these four outstanding six sigma bobos … and may many more unforeseen insights follow the happy trail of their unending quest for data-based analyses!  

    0
    #164968

    not a doc
    Participant

    I’m not sure what you’re driving at, to be honest, NYSE.  I don’t know anything about the 4 people you listed except with an assumption we are all data-driven people who use methodologies like Six Sigma to improve.  I doubt, highly, they are the reasons behind any impact on stock price for any company.  I could be wrong – who knows. 
    If we are; however, referring to GEHC I know that would be one small piece of the overall stock price.  As a large shareholder I know many of the reason why the stock took a nose dive – very much around the transition from Welch to Immelt and 911.  
    I won’t say I support Hogan as the leader of GEHC and I think it’s time for him to move on, but I have seen the power of SS, especially in the Manufacturing world.  I don’t know what MBB said GEHC SS program stunk (if they were commerical or manu – if they were in DI or CS – if they were in the US or abroad).  What I do know is I have walked the floors and seen, first-hand, that equipment going through the DFSS process and seen Lean ship-up the shop floors.
    As a patient, I’ve been through the equipment that found a life threatening illness that helped to save my life.  For that reason, I am probably very biased. 
    As a BB and a business leader I always see growth potential in everything; GE is included.   I’m sure many people will disagree with me…but that’s what we do, right?  We discuss – we share – and we grow. 

    0
    #164973

    Silly site
    Member

    What gets me on this site is that tendency to inflate the persona: “Dr.” Scott, an ordinary PhD at best “is in the top 3% of the 25 top Universities with a major in business and a minor in psychology” … totally meaningless, he wasn’t a valedictorian at Harvard, period. You all of a sudden are a “large shareholder” of GE stock. Come on, people who post on this site are not in the top league of anything (with the exception of Mike Carnell, and Robert Butler who does not inflate his knowledge; they don’t have to). Anyway, happy posting, I come here once in a while to see what illustrious personalities are posting now and how everyone inflates their position in life. American “Six Sigma Professionals” are of a vanity that is just as over the top as everything else in that country. It’s hilarious to see it J.

    0
    #164977

    Brandon
    Participant

    Not a Doc – you are wasting your breath (or typing) with NYSE. This is a guy who has called himself Virtual something, Hiatus, Friede and others. He never posts using the same name more than once. He never contributes – just criticises and attempts to demean.
    While I know little of GE I’ve appreciated your views. They are certainly closer to the subject matter than the majority of the posts on the subject.
    Additionally, many in the SS world believe SS is all a company needs to succeed. SS can be a major contributor however there are so many other dynamics impacting performance that are far more critical to success. And, they are moving targets constantly. So while I would suspect SS has helped GE it can’t be relied upon to solve all the issues faced by such a large & diverse firm.

    0
    #164983

    not a doc
    Participant

    Well said, Brandon.  And thank you for your response (and the heads up).  I’ve been a reader on these boards for a year, but have only engaged in discussions recently.
    Regards. 

    0
    #165051

    The Hunter
    Member

    Forget GE’s stock. I made my money recruiting GE Healthcare MBBs and BBs.
    Now that no one wants them I have to find another source for talent.
    I would like to see GE Healthcare get back in the game.
    I mentioned what’s missing in my previous post.
    Let’s the MBBs and BBs real training and coaching.
    Bring back the stats training
    If you’re going to attempt lean get real lean people, not young inexperienced manufacturing types that think holding a kaizen event is changing the organizations culture.
    Get or find someone who has successfully deployed lean (visible, stabilize, simplify, and standardized. I haven’t spoke with any one in GEHC who has done anything more than a VSM and then ad-hoc kaizens.
    I can go on and on and on.
    BTW, I probably know GEHC Lean Six Sigma / Simplification program that the people supposed in in charge of the program in Milwaukee.
    The Lean Six Sigma Program is the lamest in GE and not worthy of being called neither Lean nor Six Sigma, perhaps thats why it’s being called “simplification”

    0
    #165055

    Ward
    Participant

    Hunter,Again your comments are on the mark, but I don’t believe limited to GEHC. I left Six Sigma consulting because I lost faith in how it was being approached across the board. The model when I began consulting (1996, GE) was:
    1) BB training was 4 weeks of classroom training over 4 months
    2) When Lean Master training began it was 4 weeks of classroom training over 4 months
    3) We had 2 instructors
    4) About 20 people in class
    5) Proven training material
    6) Intense project coaching during the training and the weeks between the classroom training
    7) Project Champion & executive coaching
    7) Rigorous tollgate reviews.
    Which has involved into:
    1) 4 weeks for combined Lean & BB training,
    2) 1 instructor
    3) More than 20 people in a class
    4) Training material that changes (not improves) every wave
    5) Minimal coaching (where the real learning occurs)
    6) Minimal coaching for Project Champions
    7) Ineffective tollgates.I no longer felt like we were setting BBs up for success, so I’ve moved on. It was always, “clients don’t want to pay”. My previous experience was that with the original model, you would always have at least one project that would more than pay for the entire Six Sigma wave! We were no longer focusing on that, and instead focusing on training.

    0
    #165056

    Ward
    Participant

    To be fair, I should add that just as I believe your comments can apply to organizations other than GEHC, not all my comments extend to all six sigma deployments.
    As has been tossed around before, a standard would be helpful. I only know of a few people still around (Mike C.) who still aren’t afraid to walk out the door, if clients don’t want to stick with the rigor.
    The fortunate people are those who benefited from the original deployments at Motorola, Allied, GE, Caterpillar.

    0
    #165060

    Mikel
    Member

    Pete,I agree with what you are saying. Lean Masters should get the
    same type training as we give for SS BB’s not some watered down
    crap that supposed combines Lean and SS. Linkage to strategy and
    involvement for the top (not support – involvement!) are the most
    important. Intensive coaching/mentoring against a rigorous
    timeline (this is scheduling a problem for solution as Juan said
    back in 1964) is second. I disagree however on the number of instructors and class size.
    This is yet another way consultants pump up billable days.
    AlliedSignal, for example, had classes of 40+ with a single
    instructor and some of the best MBB’s came out of this
    environment.

    0
    #165072

    Ward
    Participant

    Stan,Thanks again for your response. I respect what you are saying regarding the instructor/class relationship. I do believe that ratio would work, but so many other factors have to be of high quality. There must be an appropriate sized class room, proper layout of the room, high quality training materials, and students should arrive with project areas already in mind. If those elements were in place, then the instructor can focus on successful delivery.

    0
    #165074

    Mikel
    Member

    Agreed.All of the things you mentioned are elements of a successful
    deployment.

    0
    #165163

    The Hunter
    Member

    Pete, your comments are exactly what I have been hearing from the MBBs and BBs I recruited.
    Especially the ones listed below;
    Which has involved into: 1) 4 weeks for combined Lean & BB training, 2) 1 instructor 3) More than 20 people in a class 4) Training material that changes (not improves) every wave 5) Minimal coaching (where the real learning occurs) 6) Minimal coaching for Project Champions 7) Ineffective tollgates. (if they exist at all. Many projects have no sponsor or someone accountable for the results.
    Moreover, my clients (the companies hiring the MBBs and BBs) now have issues about the integrity and ethics of the MBBs and BBs. For example, when calculating financial benefits numbers are grossly overstated and include cost avoidance savings which are dollars that would have never been spent.
    Another issue, is that the MBBs and BBs are alienating the organization by using fear and forces as change tools. They have difficulty articulating their work and it’s importance. It’s not uncommon for the GEHC trained MBBs and BBs to rely on comments like Joe, the ceo, said so, blah, blah, blah. The MBBs and BBs are accustomed to
    copying everyone on an email if they don’t get their way.
    The MBBs and BBs think the Lean Six Sigma organization is there to serve the elitists in Milwaukee agenda and not that of the business units.
    This is killing my business.

    0
    #165446

    Heatlhcare MLL
    Participant

    You guys are absolutely right about GEHC L6S. The organization is in shambles. They have struggled to put together a “Lean Six Sigma” or “Simplification” strategy. It seems there primary focus is learning the Japanese name of lean tools in a vain attempt to appear competent and credible. They don’t realize that Lean is more of a culture than a language. I can order beers in Spanish that doesn’t make me Mexican.
    They talk a great game, Growth stabilization simplification but haven’t done Jack. Many people inside of GEHC don’t even know Lean Six Sigma or Lean exists anymore.
    For an organization that is intended to drive stability, simplification, and standardization they are a hodge podge of people and businesses doing their own thing and tagging a Japanese term to it.
    GE being such a metric driven organization, no one in the GEHC Lean Six Sigma organization can tell their key metrics of success. They are attempting to use other organizations’ metrics as their.
    Tyring to emulate Toyota’s TPS without having the culture in place is suicidal.

    0
    #165447

    RickL
    Member

    Its really sad to hear that the six sigma in GE divisions are starting to go down. I didnt have much encounter with GE except some work interaction with ex-GE engineers. As from what they told me is their six sigma and lean is more on gimmick rather than the corporate culture. But the situation vary in different divisions.
    I agree that Lean and six sigma means as a continuos improving culture more than just a “quick fix” tools to an organization. 
    My opinions on the BB should be valued and accredited with real life project practices rather than through certifications  is second to this thought.
    Seems in some cases the Lean and Six sigma become a “tool” rather than a “way” to achieve improvement. Management use it as an activitity to tell the stake holder they are doing some big things and employees use it as a tool to get higher pay and sense of superiority over other.
     

    0
    #165671

    X GEHC BB
    Member

    All the comments about GEHC Lean Six Sigma are valid and correct. I have experienced it first hand. Especially the part about scrounging around for projects to keep busy.However, there is a jewel in the rough in the GEHC software business. There is an Lean Six Sigma team (MBB and BBs)that helped their P&L create a real strategy, strategy graph, balanced score and appropriate projects. I have never seen anything like that team. They are textbook six sigma. With all the trappings of top management support and involvement. The MBB makes them do formal tollgates including presenting as if the CEO was in the room.They have all of the following for the 10 way to failure article published on isixsigma;1. Commitment from the Top – they have it. Projects are selected by the GM and his staff from the strategy. A real strategy.2. Full-time Black Belts – the MBB believes that Six Sigma is a generic skill and is teaching his BBs operations, strategic planning, and consulting skills.3. Projects are Linked to Organizational Objectives – the projects were selected from the strategic planning process the MBB put in place4. Focusing on Quantity Instead of Quality – the MBB insists that the BBs work on the vital few projects that are key to the P&L’s success.5. Review Mechanism – that team’s projects get reviewed weekly with the GM of the P&L6. No Visible Reward and Recognition Mechanism – it’s GEHC there is no reward mechanism. The MBB and BBs could make a fortune elsewhere.7. Infrastructural Support to Teams Working on Projects – the weekly reviews and strategic dependency of the success of the projects is the infrastructure.8. Copy-and-Paste Deployment – their deployment is textbook but they have an overarching multi year strategy unique to them.9. Too Much Insistence on Statistics and Tools – their MBBs mantra is use whatever methods, tools, and tests that get us sustainable results.10. Expecting Too Much and Too Soon – this is the only team that has a long term strategy that is paying off.This is the only Lean Six Sigma team I have seen that has done things as outlined by all the text books. I wish I could have been part of the team. However,if you ask the team how things are, they would say ok. They don’t realize how unique their position is.This team is the exception to the rule, yet I don’t anyone in GEHC knows their situation and the huge project success they have had.

    0
    #165766

    Bean Town Belt
    Participant

    Oh my god, this thread is great.I was GEHC based out VT. What a travesty.The Six Sigma organization was reorged into a central overhead team that is directionless, essentially killing the six sigma program that has been on life support.They brought in new people who are clueless about the business and even more clueless about lean and six sigma. The lean team paradoxically is creating a bunch waste, rework, extra unused reports, and bureaucracy. Before I left, my P7L had an hour to list his top 5 priorities for 08 and that was called hoshin planning. I wish we could hoshin planning in an hour. The organization is more interested in learning Japanese names for process improvement tools than are about doing meaningful project work. What an identity crisis. Maybe they should start eating sushi and wearing Toyota boxer shorts.In a recent VSM session, on a value stream that has no data, no owner, and no goals)the new Lean team identified tens of projects and claimed tons of potential improvement benefits, dollars and all, based on nothing!!! There was no gemba, no data, no nothing. The team is about doing things not necessarily doing something meaningful and sustainable. Oh well!

    0
Viewing 41 posts - 1 through 41 (of 41 total)

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