Comments on: GE’s CIO and Lean Results http://www.leanblog.org/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/ Mark Graban's leanblog.org - Lean Healthcare, Lean Thinking, Lean Manufacturing, Toyota Production System Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:26:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: SiggySig http://www.leanblog.org/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3835 SiggySig Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:53:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3835 Here's what that looked like from inside GE - I've recently joined as a BB.<br/><br/>For starters, the tools available from a software and information perspective are circa 2000. Minitab 12 is on my laptop. Excel 2000. Enterprise systems are from the 1990's. Evidently GE doesn't invest much in these sorts of technologies - ironic to see an article touting a CIO.<br/><br/>More importantly, lean and six sigma are being quietly eschewed for "traditional quality" - ISO compliance, audits, procedure writing, work instructions, etc. In fact, the quality leader for Energy is staffing up heavily in compliance functions, while my group of 1 MBB and 3 BBs support a 1500 person organization. A senior leader recently responded to a question about quality problems by saying basically that workers just need to pay more attention to what they're doing. I threw up in my mouth a little when I heard that one.<br/><br/>I agree that achieving results is far more important than what tools are used, what certifications are granted, etc. Let's just say that I was shocked to see the level of opportunity for improvement in a company that's been doing Six Sigma for as long as GE has.<br/><br/>I will be looking forward to leaving lss roles behind. Here’s what that looked like from inside GE – I’ve recently joined as a BB.

For starters, the tools available from a software and information perspective are circa 2000. Minitab 12 is on my laptop. Excel 2000. Enterprise systems are from the 1990′s. Evidently GE doesn’t invest much in these sorts of technologies – ironic to see an article touting a CIO.

More importantly, lean and six sigma are being quietly eschewed for “traditional quality” – ISO compliance, audits, procedure writing, work instructions, etc. In fact, the quality leader for Energy is staffing up heavily in compliance functions, while my group of 1 MBB and 3 BBs support a 1500 person organization. A senior leader recently responded to a question about quality problems by saying basically that workers just need to pay more attention to what they’re doing. I threw up in my mouth a little when I heard that one.

I agree that achieving results is far more important than what tools are used, what certifications are granted, etc. Let’s just say that I was shocked to see the level of opportunity for improvement in a company that’s been doing Six Sigma for as long as GE has.

I will be looking forward to leaving lss roles behind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David http://www.leanblog.org/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3788 David Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:03:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3788 This seems to me to be very basic management stuff. What *should* have happened is (a)the GE Money sales organization should have complained that this process was taking too long, (b)the person at the general managment level should have paid attention to the complaint, and (c)asked someone to take a look at the process, after which the process should have been redesigned to fix the problem.<br/><br/>In the spirit of "ask why N times," Gary Reiner should investigate why this wasn't done much earlier. For instance, did sales complain and get ignored? Did the problem get identified but did IT refuse to do the work required to fix it? Dealing with issues such as these would likely do more good than fixing a particular broken process.<br/><br/>I also wonder if the earlier focus on Six Sigma was so intense that people were so busy supporting that top-down initiative that they didn't have time to address certain issues actually critical to their business. This seems to me to be very basic management stuff. What *should* have happened is (a)the GE Money sales organization should have complained that this process was taking too long, (b)the person at the general managment level should have paid attention to the complaint, and (c)asked someone to take a look at the process, after which the process should have been redesigned to fix the problem.

In the spirit of “ask why N times,” Gary Reiner should investigate why this wasn’t done much earlier. For instance, did sales complain and get ignored? Did the problem get identified but did IT refuse to do the work required to fix it? Dealing with issues such as these would likely do more good than fixing a particular broken process.

I also wonder if the earlier focus on Six Sigma was so intense that people were so busy supporting that top-down initiative that they didn’t have time to address certain issues actually critical to their business.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mark Graban http://www.leanblog.org/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3786 Mark Graban Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:09:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3786 David - I think "Reengineering" was 1993. So 15 years.<br/><br/>I know, "waste" seems so obvious except to those who don't see it. Right or wrong, the Lean approach *does* help people see waste and delay... driving them to improve value streams instead of functions. <br/><br/>Should GE have realized this earlier? Maybe, but isn't that the case of anyone implementing anything?<br/><br/>Or do you hold GE to a higher standard because of their size, reputation, and the collection of brainpower they have? David – I think “Reengineering” was 1993. So 15 years.

I know, “waste” seems so obvious except to those who don’t see it. Right or wrong, the Lean approach *does* help people see waste and delay… driving them to improve value streams instead of functions.

Should GE have realized this earlier? Maybe, but isn’t that the case of anyone implementing anything?

Or do you hold GE to a higher standard because of their size, reputation, and the collection of brainpower they have?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David http://www.leanblog.org/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3785 David Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:05:00 +0000 http://leanblog.bigbigdesign.net/2008/07/ges-cio-and-lean-results/#comment-3785 "it was taking 63 days from when a retailer contacted us saying it wanted to consider using us as a private-label financier until it could conduct the first transaction with our financing. No one had calculated this before we went on this journey"...well, I would say that's fairly pathetic. When did Mike Hammer (in his book on reengineering) first suggest the mantra "staple yourself to an invoice" (or whatever document or action--so you can see how it flows across various parts of the organization and how cycle time can be taken out)--1986? Why did GE Money management have to wait for a new corporate religion in order to do a process flow map on an obviously important transaction type?<br/><br/>As a GE shareholder, this does not make me happy. “it was taking 63 days from when a retailer contacted us saying it wanted to consider using us as a private-label financier until it could conduct the first transaction with our financing. No one had calculated this before we went on this journey”…well, I would say that’s fairly pathetic. When did Mike Hammer (in his book on reengineering) first suggest the mantra “staple yourself to an invoice” (or whatever document or action–so you can see how it flows across various parts of the organization and how cycle time can be taken out)–1986? Why did GE Money management have to wait for a new corporate religion in order to do a process flow map on an obviously important transaction type?

As a GE shareholder, this does not make me happy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>