abhishreshthaa
Abhijeet S
Six Sigma for Small and Medium Sized Businesses & Large Businesses
All companies can save money by reducing the causes of defects in products, deficiencies in services and processes, and by improving sales through greater customer satisfaction. However, a small company (less than 100 employees) will have fewer resources available than a larger company (1000 employees) to complete projects.
The magnitude of improvement will be different between large and small companies. A small company also may have a lesser need to improve than a larger company. Small companies have fewer employees wearing "multiple hats" when carrying out tasks in a process. With fewer employees involved there may be fewer deficiencies to improve on.
A larger company will have multiple employees and functions involved, creating complexity and possibly a greater amount of deficiency in the processes.
The main difference between small and large companies will be how to train employees in the tools and techniques of Six Sigma. The short term costs for training and the length of time to complete projects may take longer than in a large company.
This mainly occurs because smaller companies cannot free up too many individuals in a short period of time to make the improvements.
One of the more familiar dilemmas in business today is how to implement Six Sigma in small and medium-sized companies. This is a serious issue because larger companies are beginning to mandate Six Sigma to their supply base as a condition of doing future business.
The problem arises when small and mid-sized organizations solicit deployment proposals from Six Sigma consulting companies only to learn that the traditional Six Sigma implementation approach can require millions of dollars in investment, dedication of their best full time resources, and training of the masses.
Those of you who have experienced this situation will agree that this approach to Six Sigma is unrealistic for smaller and mid-sized organizations. But there still exists a real need to bring smaller and mid-sized companies into the Six Sigma fold, because collectively they might represent as much as 75%-80% of total value stream activity.
The traditional top-down implementation approach is a major barrier to entry for smaller and mid-sized companies, and it doesn't need to be. There are alternative Six Sigma deployment models that allow smaller and mid-sized organizations to implement at a pace where they can actually digest the methodology and achieve benefits, without the significant resource commitment and overhead structure of the traditional Six Sigma implementation approach.
As a result, organizations are sometimes able to achieve faster and more impressive benefits than their larger customers.
All companies can save money by reducing the causes of defects in products, deficiencies in services and processes, and by improving sales through greater customer satisfaction. However, a small company (less than 100 employees) will have fewer resources available than a larger company (1000 employees) to complete projects.
The magnitude of improvement will be different between large and small companies. A small company also may have a lesser need to improve than a larger company. Small companies have fewer employees wearing "multiple hats" when carrying out tasks in a process. With fewer employees involved there may be fewer deficiencies to improve on.
A larger company will have multiple employees and functions involved, creating complexity and possibly a greater amount of deficiency in the processes.
The main difference between small and large companies will be how to train employees in the tools and techniques of Six Sigma. The short term costs for training and the length of time to complete projects may take longer than in a large company.
This mainly occurs because smaller companies cannot free up too many individuals in a short period of time to make the improvements.
One of the more familiar dilemmas in business today is how to implement Six Sigma in small and medium-sized companies. This is a serious issue because larger companies are beginning to mandate Six Sigma to their supply base as a condition of doing future business.
The problem arises when small and mid-sized organizations solicit deployment proposals from Six Sigma consulting companies only to learn that the traditional Six Sigma implementation approach can require millions of dollars in investment, dedication of their best full time resources, and training of the masses.
Those of you who have experienced this situation will agree that this approach to Six Sigma is unrealistic for smaller and mid-sized organizations. But there still exists a real need to bring smaller and mid-sized companies into the Six Sigma fold, because collectively they might represent as much as 75%-80% of total value stream activity.
The traditional top-down implementation approach is a major barrier to entry for smaller and mid-sized companies, and it doesn't need to be. There are alternative Six Sigma deployment models that allow smaller and mid-sized organizations to implement at a pace where they can actually digest the methodology and achieve benefits, without the significant resource commitment and overhead structure of the traditional Six Sigma implementation approach.
As a result, organizations are sometimes able to achieve faster and more impressive benefits than their larger customers.