iSixSigma

Published Quantified Benefits From LSS Programs?

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Forum Basics Welcome Published Quantified Benefits From LSS Programs?

Viewing 60 posts - 1 through 60 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #53909

    Patrick Goodrich
    Participant

    Does anyone know where I might find public information on quantified benefits/results from Corporate LSS programs? In the past 3 weeks I have spoken with the investor relations departments of two major US retailers and both have indicated that they do not have quantified benefits/results from their LSS programs, which I find interesting because both have been deploying now for 5-6 years.

    0
    #192011

    Katie Barry
    Participant

    Hi Patrick,

    You may find the following article useful: Six Sigma Costs and Savings – https://www.isixsigma.com/implementation/financial-analysis/six-sigma-costs-and-savings/

    We also have a section of case studies that may contain some of the information you’re looking for: https://www.isixsigma.com/implementation/case-studies/

    And in 2006 iSixSigma produced a research report that looked at Six Sigma use in the FORTUNE 500. One of the sections of the report is “Six Sigma Savings as a Percentage of Annual Revenue.” It is available for purchase on the iSixSigma Marketplace at this link: https://www.isixsigma.com/product/Research-Guides/ALL-Research-Guides/six-sigma-saves-a-fortune-research-report

    Hope this helps!
    Katie

    Katie Barry
    Editor, iSixSigma.com

    0
    #193388

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Hello Patrick,

    Savings numbers are always a scary topic. Many folks do not wish to publicize the real numbers. There is also fear of being held accountable for (1) the accuracy/financial controls surrounding the savings data and (2) the possible artificial inflation of margin for those of us working government programs. Having worked with/at many of the organizations featured in the links Katie posted, I can tell you that savings numbers reported are extremely understated.

    Our recent poll of US Government’s LSS project savings is well over $50 billion (that is where they made us stop reporting) with ROIs in excess of 700X. We’ll be publishing a full list of agency savings and project summaries this September during our Federal Performance Symposium.

    Rob

    0
    #193389

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    @RobFioto
    I’d love to see the data on those savings.

    0
    #193392

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @cseider

    We are working the last of the political gymnastics to be able to share the data and project summaries. Despite all the negative press, the GOVies are doing wonderful work.

    0
    #193397

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto $50 billion for an effort that has been going on for over a decade against a yearly budget of several trillion? The number sounds big without context.

    0
    #193399

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    That number is only for the last two years. Formal tracking and reporting in the DoD didn’t even start until 2009. Not to mention the fact that widespread mandate use of LSS doesn’t even go into effect until House Bill 2188 is approved.
    Also, these numbers were generated with a much lower belt-ratio than the commercial sector. If you look at the benefit to waste ration (DoD vs. Commercial sector) the numbers are much higher. Plus, I’ve never seen a consultant work projects while people were trying to kill them.

    0
    #193403

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto God, motherhood, and apple pie. Wave the flag and claim BB projects are going on under fire. Really?

    Rob, let’s start talking reality. The numbers in DoD are much lower and the opportunity is much higher. How much money still gets spent every year just so the next budget isn’t smaller? You are working in an entrenched system. This is like a 12 step program, the more you insist you are a model, the more you will not make real progress.

    If you want to really impress us tell us what was changed in the BOK and why.

    0
    #193405

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Gary, you act like the entire federal sector has a big pot of endless cash for which to burn. While I agree that billions are wasted, the financial control and budget for each agency are relatively fixed. The Army alone (having the largest DoD service budget and supporting 1.2 million people) has audited LSS ROI in excess of 700X. That is a huge number for part-time GS12-14 change agents. Similar results are echoed across the other federal agencies that have LSS programs.

    The main points I’m trying to make on the new BoK, and its development processes are that:
    1. There is finally one coordinated DoD model for training and certification not dozens. Previous deployment attempts were all proprietary and dreamed up by consultants. There were over eight different models in place (DMAIC, IOPEA, OODA and, etc.)as well.

    2. Projects and savings are now (as of 2009) tracked and reported for consistency to a Senior Steering Committee. Forums for sharing and best practices are now flowing across agency boundaries.

    3. The new BoK is an open-source, evolving document that is collaboratively built and maintained by the community. We were tired of outdated and confusing crap that was only important to my Grandpas deployment.

    4. The standards and BoK can now evolve from the needs of the enterprise strategy. The success of the BoK is linked to the outcomes. It is also accredited so folks are eligible for college credit.

    5. Learning materials are also maintained by the community. Previously, over a billion dollars was wasted on industry MBBs to create the same boring materials repeatedly. Now each learning element is maintained and aligned to the BoK. Each BoK element is measured for results/effectiveness against the enterprise strategy.

    6. The Bok is sectioned into three parts (Human Transformation, Leadership/Management and Technical skills). Each section is aligned to competency levels needed for each belt/learning level. Instead of a pass/fail score, leaders can easily build consistent development plans – based on measurable competencies, as well as a belt’s specific needs.

    The idea was to get away from a BoK that was solely developed by statistical geeks or to support yesterday’s needs. We wanted a process that was both measurable and aligned with the long-term needs of the needs Federal Enterprise. Learning and certifications that do not produce results are a waste. “we’ve made it” and/or “the best it will ever be” models quickly become outdated. Holding them sacred also becomes the anchor that can hold you back. Regardless of what you believe, this is a significant step forward for the DoD. The data will be released, and the model will become public in September during the Federal Performance Symposium.

    0
    #193424

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    700x is pure nonsense, someone play accounting games.

    And yesterday’s needs? What is different? Effectiveness and efficiency have not changed.

    I do agree with the need for one BoK, but evolved by the user community? You might want to involve some adult governance.

    I’ve interviewed several people lately coming out of your deployments, I can’t in good conscious hire any because their knowledge is less than a good GB.

    0
    #193425

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Hey everybody do the math on this.

    $50 billion since 2009

    700x ROI

    Must mean the DoD is spending a total of less than 300 FTE’s on all work, this includes all project work.

    Rob, I think you don’t understand ROI.

    0
    #193426

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Gary,

    Due to your continued ranting…You are beginning to look very stupid.

    As previously stated, the $50 billion is a reference as to what was “publically acceptable for disclosure of savings to date”. The actual number is much higher. If you have a problem with not having the actual number, contact the Director for OSD’s LSS PMO. If you had actually attended any of the forums (Katie was there – @KatieBarry ), or been a part of the actual work, you would know more. Also, as previously stated, you can attend the September conference.

    If you have a problem with the LSS numbers reported by the Army (as approved by the Secretary of the Army and OSD), you can contact the director of the Army’s Office of Business Transformation (OBT). Their Director’s name is Kirk Nicholas: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kirk-nicholas/14/a61/553 Let me know how well that email/call goes for you…

    The new BoK is governed by adult governances. Over 28 agencies (http://c983396.r96.cf2.rackcdn.com/2012_FIT_List.pdf)have seats on its governance. This new steering committee is called the Federal Improvement Team (FIT). They issued a press release (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/4/prweb9410505.htm) last month before their first Knowledge Sharing Event (KSE). They should have their website up shortly: http://www.fitportal.org

    As for your unsubstantiated comment relating to: “I’ve interviewed several people lately coming out of your deployments, I can’t in good conscious hire any because their knowledge is less than a good GB”. I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you assuming that I run all the deployments in the Government? Also, as the new process we are talking about is less than 2 years old. Any candidates you would see are (maybe) BBs with 2-3 projects at best now. I would sure hope that you are not trying to hire and pawn newbie LSS folks off as Master consultants?

    0
    #193432

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Rob, there is no ranting on my part.

    As far as the my comment, you have come on here representing the DoD BoK, if you represent anything less, you need to clarify. You claim responsibility back to 2009.

    The claims are not believable

    0
    #193438

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Gary,

    I’ll update my profile information this week. Long story short, I went beyond my MBB and several dozen deployments to the doctoral-level in QMS and OD. If you can’t wait for full profile update and upcoming press release, get with Mike ( @michaelcyger ). I’ve known him for a while.

    0
    #193450

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto I wasn’t really interested in your academics, I can see that on Linkedin.

    It was more of a rhetorical question given that you claim so much including 700x ROI’s. It doesn’t pass a sanity check.

    My question is do you really believe your own claims?

    0
    #193451

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Gary,

    I gave you the source of the data and his LinkedIn contact info. If you feel it is wrong or that the Army is lying on their congressional reporting, call the source – don’t point your blind assumptions at me…

    0
    #193452

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @RobFioto – While as a former member of the military, and as a current taxpayer, I desperately wish that your numbers were based in reality, I cannot accept them as based in fact such as I would expect from a civilian organization.

    One simple evaluation will demonstrate whether there is true culture change or not – what happens to the excess budget money at the end of the budget year? I do not see this money being returned to the Treasury, rather, as was the norm during my time, it is spent for fear that if not, the future budget would be reduced.

    Unfortunately, the culture in government is anti-thetical to true process improvement. I congratulate you and others for whatever achievements have been made – heaven knows we need it – but please don’t ask us to accept 700X improvements. The only way to accept such figures is to use the typical “baseline” budgetting fallacies typical in government, and those have no corralary with real accounting.

    Just my humble opinion.

    0
    #193453

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto You are the one giving “data”, explain the 700x, don’t defer me to some Pentagon official.

    The number is not believable.

    0
    #193455

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @MBBinWI: First of all, thank you for your service.

    I will agree that much of the savings will never make it back to the treasury. Our elected officials are very good at finding other ways for which to spend our money. That was true of AlliedSignal, Raytheon and any otehr organization I supported as well. When you take into consideration that several GB projects and Kaizen events (sometimes only a few days in duration) produce several billion in savings, it is clear to see these are not your typical civilian deployment.

    Another contributing factor, as posted back in January ( https://www.isixsigma.com/topic/dod-certified-six-sigma-programs/ ), the DoD finally took similar steps to those of their civilian counterparts. DFAS, Army, Air Force and several other Federal agencies have already (in many cases voluntarily) cut and returned budget (not counting war funding reductions) due to their project activity. As an enterprise, the DoD is now also leveraging licensing of their technology to the civilian market (to the tune of billions) that is also reversing the budget flow.

    I’m by no means saying that the deployment is perfect. However, there is now a formal focus and mission that has been accepted and supported by two Presidents.

    0
    #193456

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto Now we are getting somewhere. Savings that don’t make the bottom line are not savings. We can now stop talking the 700x nonsense.

    And now to claim that it’s because of the politicians? Come on, they are too busy playing in their own sandbox. And to claim they spend Raytheon’s and AlliedSignal’s money too?

    You’ve come on here for comic relief, right?

    0
    #193457

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @garyacone

    Do you even read? Way to pull information out of context. And you are an MBB? Maybe you should spend more time on that boat of yours.

    0
    #193458

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    1) yes I can read
    2) no I am not a MBB
    3) spending time on a boat will not make your claims less comical. Want to go diving with me?

    0
    #193459

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @garyacone
    1) Couldn’t tell from your last response.
    2) Interesting as that was one of Bossidy’s requirements for his consultants. Ross and company also boasted of their MBB status frequently.
    3) I gave you the source to validate the claim. A good consultant/MBB would check the data before leaping.

    Yes to diving – as it has been a while. But then you need to come play on my 670 acre weapons testing range. We have lots of fun toys…Deal?

    0
    #193460

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    1) I read just fine, that how I knew your claims were unbelievable.
    2) Are you claiming to have been a consultant for Bossidy?
    3) A good consultant knows nonsense when they hear it.

    0
    #193461

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Not as consultant – as one of MBBs supporting his Aerospace business sector. I assume that you were part of the original consulting crew that was walked out. I’m guessing that you were pre-meltdown at SSA? There were a lot of consulting houses that started out of that mess.

    Yes. It tells me that the old-guard thinks they can hold the space and kill the energy behind LSS. You’ve just solidified my desire to stay here and bring dozens of friends. See you soon.

    0
    #193462

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    No one was walked out, must be one of the rumors you’ve picked up over the years like the 700X ROI. I worked for Larry and Rich Schroeder from Dec. 1994 through 1998.

    Not part of SSA except for one month at the onset of the Allied work. Have your friend Mikel explain what happened.

    I welcome you to stick around, let’s just start talking about reality.

    Can I read your dissertation?

    0
    #193463

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Yes. You’ll be able to buy it online soon. It is the foundation for a new series of deployments. I’ll send you the link.

    0
    #193464

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    Your profile says you are a MBB through RACE University which did not exist at the time of Allied and Bossidy.

    Which is it?

    And by the way the savings at Allied were real and the stock holders rewarded Larry and team handsomely for it. Don’t know about Raytheon but that was Air Academy, I have respect for their founders and don’t believe they would cook the books as you are implying is happening on your watch.

    0
    #193465

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Like many other hard-badge (non-consultant) employees, each organization wanted us to go through their own training – as it was “different” and/or “special”. I’ve been through many LSS programs AlliedSignal/Honeywell, Raytheon, DFAS, RACE and etc. I only claim the last certification.

    No one made mention of “cooking the books” as you implied. The comment made was: “…not see[ing] this money being returned to the Treasury…” In many civilian and government organizations the money is reinvested and/or used to supplement other areas of need – therefor it never return home as “bottom line” savings. If you were truly part of the AlliedSignal deployment you would know this to be true as it happened regularly.

    In fact, it is often much harder to deobligate government funding than it is to use it as a strategic investment – resulting in cost avoidance for the next fiscal year’s budget. Not sure where your imagination dug such sinister intent.

    0
    #193467

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto I made the comment of cooking the books.

    You know like the unbelievable 700X ROI. Rob, you probably have something to offer but not by claiming things that are not real.

    Let me remind you of the standard for ROI reporting since before your first training at Allied. Total cost of running the project (manpower and material) and first 12 months savings starting when the project is in the Control Phase. I suspect people are fudging both ends of the equation.

    You do remember having a consistent measurement is important, don’t you?

    0
    #193469

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    You are like a broken record. If you don’t believe that the published savings and/or calculation is correct, call source. If you really worked for Bossidy, you will remember his “act on fact” mantra.

    I see that a few LSS folks list you (Gary Cone) as their “certifying body”. I am curious to know how folks are getting LSS certified by you – seeing how you were never formally MBB trained/certified. You accuse me in this forum of being a conman (which is legally Tortious Interference by the way), yet you never bothered to follow proper process/protocol to get certified as an MBB? At least I had the respect to go through my organization’s training and certification. To do anything less would make one a hypocrite.

    0
    #193471

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto Do a little research Rob, and you will see I had responsibility for Lean (cycle time reduction in those days) and Six Sigma at Motorola Automotive on the day Six Sigma was named. I was doing and teaching this before it had a catchy name. We were also doing Lean on day 1 long before Michael George claimed to invent L6S.

    Instead of you sounding like a broken record, walk us through the calculations for any one of your 700X ROI projects. For giggles, take us through one of the 1000x projects since their must be more than a few if you are averaging 700x. For simplicity purposes, let’s use $100,000 for the fully burdened cost of your GS12-14 BB. It’s a little low, especially in areas like Dallas or Washington, but will help make your ROI number higher.

    Come on Rob, show us how it works. SGiven your background, this should be a walk in the park for you.

    0
    #193472

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    That is what all consultants say…You are basically telling us that the standards of our profession don’t apply to you – as you are the messiah of LSS? Believe in the almighty Cone…Unofficial guardian of the iSixSigma blogs. Exactly how much do you pay iSixSIgma in advertising fees to get that tile and protect your reign? Talking with Dr. Harry to see if he confirms your story.

    The core foundation of any legitimate accreditation/certification is that, regardless of personal belief, one must hold the certification for which they teach (or higher). That is not an option. It is part of the code of ethical standards in professional educational.

    Since you don’t have the intestinal fortitude, I’ll reach out to the Army LSS PMO and have them contact you directly.

    0
    #193473

    Michael Cyger
    Participant

    @RobFioto: Regarding your statement, “Exactly how much do you pay iSixSIgma in advertising fees to get that tile and protect your reign?” We do not give special treatment to anyone on the discussion forum. Period. Our Forum Etiquette guidelines are posted and viewable by anyone: https://www.isixsigma.com/topic/forum-etiquette/

    In particular, “It should go without saying that you should treat others as you would like to be treated. iSixSigma community moderators are authorized to edit or delete anything deemed rude, obnoxious or abusive but we’re not here to moderate squabbling. If you have a differing viewpoint, either defend your position or ignore the others.”

    If you would like to discuss the Forum Etiquette, please do so with our editor Katie Barry at [email protected]… We’re always open to constructive feedback for improving our processes.

    0
    #193474

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @patrickgoodrich I am assuming from your question you are interested specifically in retail industry numbers? If that is correct please contact me off line at [email protected] and I can help you contact someone (not me) who does have some of this type of data.

    0
    #193475

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @MichaelCyger I go away for a couple weeks and look what you have done to the place!

    How did you get to platinum? You shouldn’t get points for logging on that is your job.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #193481

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @robfioto The standards of our profession do apply to both of us. You see BS, you call it.

    Your claims from your innovation nonsense are pretty unbelievable too, but let’s stick to your ROI claims. When challenged, you defer, you insult, you wimper for help from iSixSigma. Just answer the simple question – show us how a 700x ROI is derived? I’ll settle for a 500x, but you probably can’t do that either.

    You are self promoting.

    0
    #193483

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @RobFioto – One might want to ask where the almighty Dr. Mikel Harry was certified, and by whom? Since you want to lend him such credence.

    0
    #193488

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @MBBinWI

    I’m just keeping the facts clear and public – as Gary wants it to be. That reference was to support a false statement by Gary (above). While many like to bash Dr. Harry, he did actually hold the original contract (SSA as the original Prime contractor for AlliedSignal, GE and etc.). Gary Cone was brought in later as one of the many sub-contact employees (as per the original contract documents). Gary claimed not to be associated with SSA as he was one of the many self-proclaimed fathers of LSS.

    I’ve been warned already this week by iSixSigma to play nice with others. So I will post the rest of the documentation and more of a response soon.

    0
    #193489

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    @RobFioto

    I think isixsigma.com is pretty liberal on what they allow….Don’t use curse words or highly inappopriate innuendos and don’t overly self promote your own business on the posts.

    I enjoyed the banter you stirred on the DOD savings over the Memorial weekend. I have been told first hand that continuous improvement is an anathema to the command structure that is more interested in promotion than doing the right thing for the taxpayer and truly changing things.

    Also, I don’t think finding where the military hardware was left in Iraq are savings unless a working system can be shown in action keeping future hardware from being lost (control plan). This is just one source of “savings” that gets jumbled in the above conversation. Also, I’ve seen many people quote savings that wouldn’t get approved by a fair, tough minded controller.

    As a public FYI, you always want to quote others or unmentionable studies to defend your position and actions. It’s not as impactful as discussing specifics or sharing stories.

    0
    #193492

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    Chris, @cseider

    You are correct. The earlier deployments received a great deal of attention for their limited progress. It was the review and publication of that data by OSD (https://c12973764.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/Department%20of%20Defense%20Lean%20Six%20Sigma%20Deployment.pdf) that led them to have Deputy Secretary England sign an Executive Order to establish some consistency. Much has changed since then. The FY12 out-brief of progress and metrics was due to be presented at the mid-June DoD Performance Symposium. Most of that leadership has moved on or become consultants. The newer Federal deployments (1-2 years old now) learned a great deal from their DoD counterparts.

    Unfortunately, all DoD conferences were canceled by OMD due to the possibility of negative press from GSA’s conference issue (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/04/taxpayerfunded-clown-mindreader-brings-down-gsa-chief-119396.html). They are still scheduled to publish their report card this month.

    0
    #193495

    gomezadams
    Guest

    Rob,
    Your points are wholly believable by me. I have read some of the case studies published by the DoD. Unfortunately,you are dealing with certain personalities here that are apparently opposed to anything that is counter to their “invented here only” point of view.
    I laud you having undertaken the SS Rollout at AlliedSignal aerospace and whatever successes you may have had. As your neighbor in South Bend at automotive,the rollout in hindsight can be deemed anything but successful.
    Within (3-4) years of the rollout we lost a majority of our BBs and MBBs. They wanted to get on the bandwagon to higher earnings as a consultant and left the company. I suppose it was because L. Bossidy thought that the only investment he need make was in a selected training program and not in Advanced development efforts , R&D efforts,facilities and equipment improvements or patent retention for the application of antilock brakes in an automotive application.They shut their doors and eventially sold to Bosch.I was lucky enough to be employed after a two month vacation.
    From my perspective the SS rollout was a token effort that only delayed the inevitable (due to the reasons listed above).
    By the way, I did get to meet Dr. Harry and have retained the (2) comic books (white and black edition)for austerity purposes.

    0
    #193496

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto No false statements were made, I am not a MBB because I was doing this before the terms showed up. I was there on day one of AlliedSignal as employee number 4 of SSA but took my own contract one month in. Please have the LSS PMO contact me, you think it will change the unbelievable claims? It only explain what liberties are being taken.

    @spazwhatsup You might remember that Lean and Six Sigma were being used (quite successfully) to make the automotive businesses more attractive for a sale because Automotive does not give the kind of margins Bossidy desired. The exodus was to avoid being left without a job. I only know about 20 of the > 600 BB’s that went to consulting.

    0
    #193497

    gomezadams
    Guest

    I thought that SS was to be used for product and process improvement? That was the gist of the documentation I read from GE prior to the AS rollout. Are you saying now that it was to promote sale of the business?

    Automotive was not giving Bossidy the kind of margins he was looking for? Apparently aerospace as well as it was sold to Honeywell soon after.

    There is an old saying “You can’t squeeze blood from a stone”,yet Bossidy certainly tried. Little to no reinvestment in R&D,etc certainly limits your horizons. Coupled with poor senior leadership (Bossidy). What a REMF!
    From this experience,I can certainly relate to Mike Carnells concerns over
    poor senior leadership.
    I wonder if Bossidy ever developed the credit card holding business he was after.

    After Bosch purchased automotive and turned it around with significant investment,it took me 6 years to get leadership to agree to look at SS/DFSS
    processes as a means to improvement. The German leadership looked at the historical rollout,loss of talent and considered SS as you conveyed,nothing more than a ploy to posture the company for sale. Fortunately,I had an excellent BB that worked for me,and we were able to provide project work examples that were looked upon favorably by them.DFSS was rolled out globally.

    0
    #193499

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @spazwhatsup I agree with most of what you say. A couple of thoughts –

    1) We, as consultants and employees, cannot control the objectives of Leadership. We can only act with knowledge and integrity and be willing to lose our jobs if asked to do something that compromises integrity. There were a load of good people who sacrificed their hearts and souls to improve the Braking business from 1994 (probably 1992 but I wasn’t there) until the sale to Bosch. Bosch purchased a business that was better than it was in 1994, but certainly not good. You cannot build a sustainable culture change with 6S and strong leadership (Bossidy was strong, one of the three strongest leaders I’ve met). It takes a strong system; call it TPS, TPM, Danaher Business System, whatever. Everyone must be trained on how to do their job, everyone must know the strategy and how they contribute, and most importantly Leadership can’t make decisions away from the culture for convenience.

    2) There was no GE documentation prior to the AS rollout. Allied stated in the fall of 1994, GE started in the fall of 1995. It is well documented that Bossidy interested GE in 6S when running Welch’s annual Leadership session in Palm Beach in 1995.

    0
    #193500

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @garyacone I never made the claim of “own the savings”. My exact words were: “Our recent poll of US Government’s LSS project savings…”. We manage a private (secure) portal and collaborative space for government LSS employees. The data and project information being referenced was to be briefed during this year’s 2012 Performance Symposium, June 15th at the National Conference Center. Either way, I have forwarded your posts and feelings to the procurement/leadership representatives for the DoD programs in reference. They should get back with you shortly.

    @spazwhatsup The Aerospace deployment also saw many short-sighted decisions made to “Make the quarter”. Your group had some solid MBBs and great projects. I especially liked one of the joint Automotive/Aerospace projects that turned the flammable waste material (floating on the water table near the Bexdix plant in South Bend) into revenue. The high-temperature turbines actual burned/scrubbed the liquid waste, made power and drove the separation of the usable chemicals for resale. The same systems were to be deployed at Sky Harbor airport in Phoenix to suck the jet fuel and TCE of their aquifer. Smaller systems were deployed commercially for paper plants, McDonalds’ and etc. Again, great work.

    I agree with your assessment of the leadership issue. There was a great deal of broken glass with the Aerospace deployment as well. After Bossidy, the revolving (2-year) leadership cycle of support also caused much cavitation. The churn got so great that retention/non-compete agreements were mandated to all MBBs – driving many MBBs to leave anyway.

    Some of the same mistakes were identified in the early days of government deployments as well. It also didn’t help that there was no formal/standard government job grade for CPI/LSS. Most roles were listed as “other duties as assigned”. Generally speaking, I haven’t seen many deployments that truly manage their long-term LSS human capital well.

    0
    #193501

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto A MBB who reports unsubstantiated numbers? I can’t wait to hear from your friends in DoD. Hopefully they will actually speak fro data. I suspect they won’t call. What did Dr, Harry have to say?

    Why don’t we call a truce until I hear from your friends? Perhaps you actually have something of value to share?

    0
    #193502

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @garyacone I never said that the numbers were unsubstantiated. I merely pointed out that I never “claimed credit” for the work and/or savings.

    I shall agree to the truce.

    0
    #193503

    Gomezadams
    Guest

    Gary,
    My bad. It was from Motorola.

    0
    #193504

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @RobFioto – still looking for a source of certification for Dr. Harry. Since you give him such credence, certainly he must be certified from some credible body?

    0
    #193510

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @MBBinWI Several including Dr. Harry, Steve Zinkgraf, Mike Carnell, Tom Whitney, and me were not certified. All but Dr. Harry were part of the best improvement rate in all of Motorola from 1986 – 1991 and went on to help several other companies before consulting.

    But you knew that.

    0
    #193513

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @garyacone – of course I did. Always befuddles me how some folks seem to think that being boisterous equals being capable. Notice how when challenged about the certification credentials, suddenly things get very quiet? Never really bought in to all the certification crap. Too little consistency/credibility of programs.

    @RobFioto – You come in here with bravado and bluster touting outrageous numbers and when challenged, retreat into a bout of name calling and name dropping. From what I have seen, you are at best 2nd generation, and perhaps even 3rd generation. The tree has grown quite broad at this level, but it doesn’t take a lot of research to find the true roots. While Dr. Harry is the most vocal, I would not put him in the top tier of those who originally created (D)MAIC SS.

    Your argument about governmental “savings” reminds me of my wife, who upon returning from a shopping trip raves about how much she saved me. Yet, when I look at the checking account, there is less money than before. Doesn’t seem like any savings to me.

    0
    #193514

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    @MBBinWI
    I hope your wife doesn’t read this forum. :)

    0
    #193515

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @MBBinWI No retreat. Just working onsite with teams. Dr. Harry was not an instructor in our section of the deployment. However, as he is often challenged, he maintains one of the best peer-reviewed libraries of Six Sigma deployment information. This includes copies of all the original contracts, press releases, names of contractors, etc. I’m not “name dropping”. I listed his name as he is open to share this information with anyone that requests it for informational purposes or posts a challenge.

    While many only know of the methodology after Bill Smith named it in the 80’s or when folks like Dr. Harry and Jack Welch made it popular in the late 80’s and early 90’s, the origin of Six Sigma actually goes back well into the 1800s. Most of the modern “Fathers of Six Sigma” drew their inspiration and awareness to the structural elements from deployments after 1945 – based on the work of pioneers such as Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Crosby, Ishikawa, Taguchi, and others. This animal is not new and neither are the many failures in deployment.

    The initial deployment(s) within AlliedSignal were filled with the same failure modes that were faced at Motorola and several other organizations. While many of the initial folks running deployments were great at statistics, Lean and/or process engineering, they had little or no background in organizational development, organizational psychology and/or adult learning techniques. Each deployment area was only as good (or bad) as the limited experience of the consultant(s). This problem became even bigger with the release of several large government contracts for LSS. Folks that survived the commercial deployments tried to replicate their success in the government sector. Many failed, as they severely underestimated the government’s culture and/or motivational factors.

    Dr. William (Bill) Hill and Vinny Tuccillo (now VP of Six Sigma) were some of the first folks to identify the weaknesses in the early AlliedSignal deployment. Their certification (and in many cases, recertification) of MBBs was put into place as one of the controls to ensure that all trainers and deployment leaders were (1) up to the current level of expected knowledge, (2) were not propagating known failure modes of past deployments and (3) were delivering a consistent message. This was all done as part of their long-term “CPI for CPI” sustainability model – using the past data to ensure MBBs were continuously up to date. Raytheon and others adopted a similar model and took it a step further. They actually require their belts to stay current and/or go through recurrent training (similar to the medical profession).

    The more accurate savings metaphor would be this: Your wife shops wisely with her approved annual budget. She puts half the money saved in an account (with interest) for the kid’s college and puts the rest back in the bank. You then decide to empty the bank account and reallocate the household funds to your activities (this process starts every August, by the way). Due to fear of loss, you wife allocates more and more savings to ensure that the kids have funding for college.

    I will be the first to admit that the government budget cycle and the associated processes are totally hosed. That being said, you can’t blame the dedicated LSS folks that are doing their best to fix them. Billions of dollars are turned in each year. Plus-up, contract extensions, head counts (80,000 or more), and payroll have all been cut. Panetta, the current Secretary of Defense, has made DoD budget reform part of his primary mission. We’ll see how that works out in October/November when the new DoD budget policy is released.

    0
    #193516

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @RobFioto – I think that you are posting genuinely, but niaively. If you would research a bit, you would find that Mr. Cone is one of the original contributors to what has become the methodology of SS. The other names identified have also been significant contributors.

    I, myself, have concentrated on the side of DfSS. Thus, while DMAIC has contributed greately to the improvement methodologies, I have worked more to implement the prevention methods.

    You should be careful in whom to challenge and castigate. Some of those are the trunk from whom you have branched out.

    0
    #193518

    Rob Fioto
    Member

    @MBBinWI Yes. I know of Mr. Cone’s pedigree and contributions. That topic is not in question here. It is also nice to hear that your focus is in DfSS. Many organizations have abandoned that methodology and it is good to see those that keep it alive. I know my teams run many DfSS projects spanning everything from medical devices to weapons design.

    It is wise for all to remember that this tree is both very old and very broad. No single branch on its own will keep a tree alive. That is why new branches are grown each year. To put all your faith in one branch is certain death. The same is true for our methodologies. I also find it interesting that you believe that my first experience with this methodology was with AlliedSignal. I was a CPI consultant long before I decided to enter the corporate world – and before the catchy rebranding.

    0
    #193519

    Gary Cone
    Participant

    @RobFioto @MBBinWI I’ve heard of Death by Chocolate and Death by PowerPoint, I think you guys are in danger of creating a new category – Death by Metaphor.

    @RobFioto Thank you for the promotion from one of the guys walked out of Allied and a sub contractor who was brought in later to “Yes. I know of Mr. Cone’s pedigree and contributions. ” I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. I am a lucky guy who had the right education at the right time and I was willing to work my butt off and also smart enough to support people smarter than me – like MBBinWI. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Rob, your history is a bit tainted. I have respect for people like Dr. Harry and Dr. Hill (I don’t know or know of Vinny Tuccillo, but I see he is a VP at Honeywell). Honeywell, like Motorola, is a shadow of what it once was. They were purchased by Allied, by the way, the Honeywell name was retained because of brand equity.

    Motorola failed when they changed leadership. AlliedSignal failed when they let GE come in and take over. The Allied BB’s and MBB’s were and still are head and shoulders above their GE counterparts and Larry let his GE buddies bring their arrogance to bear and then did not close the deal with GE. That was when the real exodus from Allied began. GE started floundering when Welch left.

    Common thread? Change of or loss of leadership. Always has been and always will be. It’s culture and it’s the underlying system.

    Yes about Dr. Harry. He has lots of documentation and the contract part is all true. There have always been great promotors in all human ventures, that’s Dr. Harry. There have always been great implementers that, when given political coverage, do amazing things. And there have always been great back scene guys (you know the champion role) like Richard Schroeder. He was the genius at Allied, GE and 100 others before SSA imploded and the real reason for success of Dr. Harry and people like you and me. Rich continues to play that role today, but with a more rational life and a smaller trusted group around him. The difference between Harry and Schroeder? When you need someone to have your back, call Rich.

    Which brings me back to our friends at the DoD and their playmates in Washington. I am glad that the L6S folks are fighting the good fight, but they haven’t changed the culture and they can’t change the system from where they are sitting.

    Just like 6S did not start with Motorola (Juran documented the template in 1964), the quest for reform and efficiency did not start in the DoD in the early George Group work or in the reformatted work in 2009 which you apparently had a hand in. DARCOM (1970’s term that is probably outdated) had a school through Texas A&M that taught me all of the methods now called 6S. The disposition of the school? Budget cuts in 1976 put 105 well educated engineers loose in industry after the gov’t had paid for their Masters. The goal of the school? Effectiveness and efficiency of the military supply chain. I would have been loyal if they had been loyal to me – you know, that leadership thing.

    0
    #193520

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @cseider – Oh, this is a well discussed topic in our household.

    0
    #193660

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    @RobFioto
    I saw this article shown below and thought….boy, I have respect for Secretary Panetta but I’m amazed how group think works…..the DOD can’t find where it can save money? Maybe they can stop buying so much hardware for a few years and negotiate better jet fuel and other fuel prices from BP as part of the final litigation on their settlement from the oil spill.

    Of course, I still place blame on Nixon for allowing automatic COLA’s for Social Security. He should have vetoed that budget buster!

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/panetta-sequestration-threatens-critical-programs-127788.html

    Oh wait…I got an idea. Leave Afghanistan now and save the billion per day that way. The truly evil man, bin Laden, is gone….now let’s leave. Oh, I digress…hope Katie doesn’t get mad at my political ramblings on a late Sunday evening. :)

    0
    #193666

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @Robfioto @Garyacone – Rob I was not logging into this regularly when you and Gary Cone got into this. It appears to be somewhat quiescent at this point. I want to make something very clear to you specifically. I have originals of the contracts with both Allied Signal and General Electric. Gary and I were on identical contracts and we were not subcontractors to Six Sigma Academy nor Mike Harry. We were employees of SSA for approximatelu the first half of January of 1995. After that we were directly contracted to Allied Signal for the next 2 years. GE was a direct contract with GE corporate – the same arrangement as Mike except we were assigned by Gary Reiner, CIO, to be responsible for the deployments at the different sectors. Michael did training in Crotanville and at SSA in Scottsdale.

    I have seen a ton of people taking credit for the work that we (that would be several of us including Mike Harry) did in those early years. There are a lot of those people who were bashing SS and then were suddenly gurus. I get a little tired of that.

    Let’s be a little more cautious before you make it appear you are taking a strong stand on who worked for who and who did what particularly since you have never been privy to any contract that has had my signature on it.

    Regards

    0
Viewing 60 posts - 1 through 60 (of 60 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.