Work Training
September 28, 2005 5:17 PM Subscribe
Personal experience filter: Lean, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraint, Etc. Corporate management and/or downsizing tools.
I have an opportunity to have some serious training the field, for free. Is this another corporate fad? Does anyone have any personal experience?
I have an opportunity to have some serious training the field, for free. Is this another corporate fad? Does anyone have any personal experience?
I don't know whether it will truly teach you something valuable, but if you're interested in becoming employeed at GE, Honeywell or another firm that has adopted Six Sigma it is probably worthwhile. Friends from GE and Honeywell (both finance people) always talk about it - if you got the training, I'm sure it would be a huge plus on your resume and in an interview.
posted by mullacc at 6:06 PM on September 28, 2005
posted by mullacc at 6:06 PM on September 28, 2005
Total shite, unless you are assessing a factory process or something else which is repeated gazillions of times per unit time. It now gets applied to subjective, random business processes. Usually it is a nice way to garner some funds for a pet project you always wanted accomplished while at the same time fulfilling your commitment to completing a six sigma project. Your ability to redirect funds in this manner earns you a belt.
posted by caddis at 8:48 PM on September 28, 2005
posted by caddis at 8:48 PM on September 28, 2005
Sorry, Caddis, I disagree. I spent 15 years working in the field of statistical process control and one of the biggest boons was being able to apply it to limited runs.
Six Sigma works because it brings in all workers at all levels and gives them the tools to effectively contribute workable solutions to making their work go more efficiently. The area that I've found it to excel in is making office work more efficient, one of the reasons GE financial services is so profitable was the widespread use of Six Sigma analysis on the costs of just doing business, from answering the phone to making copies of a report.
The information gleaned from the process can be abused but it can also be a boon to those who like doing a job well.
Think of it as an analytical tool and it will work for you, much like the calculus helps with related rates.
posted by ptm at 9:19 PM on September 28, 2005
Six Sigma works because it brings in all workers at all levels and gives them the tools to effectively contribute workable solutions to making their work go more efficiently. The area that I've found it to excel in is making office work more efficient, one of the reasons GE financial services is so profitable was the widespread use of Six Sigma analysis on the costs of just doing business, from answering the phone to making copies of a report.
The information gleaned from the process can be abused but it can also be a boon to those who like doing a job well.
Think of it as an analytical tool and it will work for you, much like the calculus helps with related rates.
posted by ptm at 9:19 PM on September 28, 2005
I worked for AlliedSignal Technical Services Corp. before they became Honeywell Technical Services Inc. At Allied I was exposed to Six Sigma, and I would echo what caddis said. For Technical Services IMHO, Six Sigma was not applicable, but for another AlliedSignal entity that manufactured products (like Fram for example) it was.
posted by Fat Guy at 9:23 PM on September 28, 2005
posted by Fat Guy at 9:23 PM on September 28, 2005
Lean, never heard of it. Six sigma, never seen in the field. TOC: dynamite.
Honestly, TOC is the key to successful scheduling and project management. Unfortunately, it can be a hard sell to colleagues or managers raised in different project management cultures. Nonetheless, I swear by the basic philosophy for organising projects and the suggested techniques for problem-solving. It explains why traditionally managed projects are always late, and it genuinely works for delivering things on time. (It's also kind of obvious when you get it, and most of the guff is repetition and filler for dullards. I'm sure you'll cotton on fast.)
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:24 AM on September 29, 2005
Honestly, TOC is the key to successful scheduling and project management. Unfortunately, it can be a hard sell to colleagues or managers raised in different project management cultures. Nonetheless, I swear by the basic philosophy for organising projects and the suggested techniques for problem-solving. It explains why traditionally managed projects are always late, and it genuinely works for delivering things on time. (It's also kind of obvious when you get it, and most of the guff is repetition and filler for dullards. I'm sure you'll cotton on fast.)
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:24 AM on September 29, 2005
I'm an freshly greenbelted Industrial Engineer. Six Sigma is old wine in new skins. It's a repackaged collection of the same statistical tools that pulled American manufacturing out of it's funk in the 1980's. I hate to say it, but I think its optimistic acceptance by upper management makes it effective. I can get support for any project I can dream up, as long as I call it a Six Sigma Project. Get the training - it's a must on your resume for the next 3-5 years.
Lean is too nuanced for managment to really get, so it means whatever your boss thinks it means. Big culture changes are required - fat chance of true adoption in the sweatshops where the rest of us work. Read Womack's book.
It seems to me that TOC, to it's credit, is integrated into almost every consulting fad adopted in the last 15 years.
posted by klarck at 4:31 AM on September 29, 2005
Lean is too nuanced for managment to really get, so it means whatever your boss thinks it means. Big culture changes are required - fat chance of true adoption in the sweatshops where the rest of us work. Read Womack's book.
It seems to me that TOC, to it's credit, is integrated into almost every consulting fad adopted in the last 15 years.
posted by klarck at 4:31 AM on September 29, 2005
I worked at a plant owned by a giant company known for Scotch and notepads. It kept a lot of people very busy, I can't say that I saw the outcomes it promised. Seems like the concept may have been helpful but the full implementation of the program had limiting rewards. What mullacc says above is definitely true though - it will make you more employable in other companies using the same system.
posted by whatzit at 6:02 AM on September 29, 2005
posted by whatzit at 6:02 AM on September 29, 2005
All of this stuff derives out of Total Quality Management (TQM) which dates back to post WWII Japan. In the right environment it works. I don't disagree with ptm regarding some office work flow situations, at least those that involve a routine. The basic premise is to map out a process, collect data, change, collect more data and assess whether you have truly made the process work better (faster and with lower errors usually). My problem with this stuff is that I think it has been oversold by business consultants and gets used on processes which are not really repeatable. The exercise of mapping out a process may still be helpful in identifying weaknesses, even when that process is very subjective and takes many different tracks depending upon subjective judgements as it is being followed. At some point it just becomes ridiculous. You would not want, for instance, to try to apply this to the process of painting or otherwise creating works of art (well Stephen King might be using TQM but that begs the question).
As for whether you should invest in the training, if you are an engineer I think you should. As klarck indicated, it has become sort of a basic requirement to be knowledgeable in these systems today, especially for engineers. It certainly can't hurt to at least know what people are talking about when it comes up in business discussions.
So, while my personal experience with them has been poor due to how they were misapplied, for someone else these quality management systems can be of value. If nothing else, you might get enough knowledge to help someone use rather than misuse them, and it will be a plus on the resume.
posted by caddis at 7:04 AM on September 29, 2005
As for whether you should invest in the training, if you are an engineer I think you should. As klarck indicated, it has become sort of a basic requirement to be knowledgeable in these systems today, especially for engineers. It certainly can't hurt to at least know what people are talking about when it comes up in business discussions.
So, while my personal experience with them has been poor due to how they were misapplied, for someone else these quality management systems can be of value. If nothing else, you might get enough knowledge to help someone use rather than misuse them, and it will be a plus on the resume.
posted by caddis at 7:04 AM on September 29, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
That's on both the supply and demand side of the equation.
posted by nathan_teske at 5:27 PM on September 28, 2005