Six Sigma Launch and Integrated Model of Teamwork
Assignment 1
Supposing I was chosen to be the new manager of a multinational corporation, I would employ a “launch” in a proactive way. Prior to engaging in a companywide Six Sigma, I would first engage in sampling Six Sigma practices in an independent team within the organization. If this idea will be permitted by the top management and succeeded, then I would bring it to a broader framework, the whole company. Within the team, I will assess individual and team preparedness regarding the change. For example, I will do this through formal observations and in-depth interviews.
I will use the same process I applied in the experimental team. I would inform all organizational members of the coming changes. This can be done through formal meetings with department heads then with each department heads and their members. Technology could play a significant role in this process. For example, there are collaborative softwares already available in the market. Through these softwares, I could create a virtual forum exclusive for the employees so that I can acquire information regarding their perceptions on the coming changes and solicit suggestions. Resistance will be anticipated.
Developing a strong rationale is not an easy task as it seems to be since you have to find reasons why the firm must engage in Six Sigma. From a personal standpoint, I would do a MOST analysis first. MOST stands for Mission, Objectives, Strategies and Tactics. I could pinpoint what specific aspects should be retain and need improvement. I could also create new stratagem base on this. At this point, I could develop a Critical to Quality (CTQ) assessments of attributes. Evaluation will be made using a top-to-bottom approach (Heuvel, et al, 2006).
The next thing I would do is to plan. Structured planning must involve a general to specific approach. My plan would encompass indicators of the firm’s capabilities – physically, financially and organizationally. Physically means inclusion of the specific resources the Six Sigma implementation would require. Financially refers to the budget. And organizationally means the people. At this point, prioritization will be the key.
My participation is crucial in the subsequent stage. As a manager, I must be present at all points of implementation at all times. However, the challenge preceding the implementation is marketing the plan within the organization. The pre-implementation stage necessitates the task to create a vision and market change within the company. The theme I will create will mirror the totality of the Six Sigma effort. In making the people speak the same language as I do, I would lay down realistic expectations about Six Sigma. Again, resistance will be anticipated.
In so doing, I will utilize the find more, win more and keep more strategy. Find more is a strategy to clearly define the market, identify profitable opportunities for the people and determining targets. Win more is a strategy to build awareness, creating an environment of employee buy-ins and covering the whole area where Six Sigma must be marketed. Keep more is the strategy to serve and support, capture full, reasonable value and expanding the concept to the people whom are resenting the change.
Becoming powerful advocates of Six Sigma, as a manager, I will walk the talk and talk the talk. Six Sigma must become the language of the company. In particular, I could integrate Six Sigma concepts in meetings and even in impromptu discussions with staff and line personnel. I will find opportunities in motivating employees to use Six Sigma in meetings, speeches, reviews and hiring. In addition, I will develop key communication metrics so that informations regarding Six Sigma will be clarified on all corners of the company. I will also develop employee-focused dashboards to track progress (Keller, 2005).
In addition, I will select and train a deployment team and develop a human resource strategy to retain Black Belts and motivate middle management to support and contribute to the Six Sigma program (Ibid.). This purports the next step – clarifying objectives. Objectives must be challenging, reasonable and realistic. Data mining and benchmarking are the priorities. In data mining, I could discover opportunities that may lead to creating specific, obtainable objectives. Benchmarking is the same. Both could provide a wealth of ideas for defining the direction of Six Sigma implementation that is within the scope and budget.
I understand that Six Sigma is not of continuous success, there are failed Six Sigma programs. To avoid pitfalls, I will require a continuous flow of information. Constant feedbacking will be a topmost concern. I will develop a separate checklist in this area consisting of all stakeholders’ – customers, employees, shareholders – views and recommendations.
Solid measures of results will be evidenced by Six Sigma quality performance indicators. Such indicators will be measured and assessed quarterly through statistical techniques. For example, I will deploy a Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and/or Pareto analysis. It will be reported so that the people will be informed not only the gains but also the downsides of the Six Sigma implementation. The information that I will provide will include honest comparisons of perceived and actual Six Sigma performance. Communication lines will be kept open specially the virtual forums.
Bibliography
Heuvel, J. V. D., Does, R. J. M., Bogers, A. J. & Berg, M. (2006). Organizational Change and Learning: Implementing Six Sigma in The Netherlands. Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 32(7), 393-399.
Keller, P. A. (2005). Six Sigma Demystified. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Pande, P. S., Neuman, R. S. & Cavanagh, R. R. (2000). The Six Sigma Way: How GE, Motorola, and Other Top Companies Are Honing Their Performance. McGraw-Hill Professional
What is Six Sigma? (2004). CALISO Consulting LLC. http://www.caliso9000.com/six-sigma.pdf
Assignment 2
The model creates leeway of looking at enhancing the functioning of teams based on three critical points which spring from the organization and the team and not from the traditional hierarchical structure instead. The conditions that Thompson relates reflect the causality of existing facilities inherent to the organization like the ability, motivation and strategies and how it can deliver success or failure base on utilization of organizational context and team design and culture. The main key point of the model is the individual goal attainment that could possibly lead to organizational goal attainment. Another point is the effort to bring together complementary assets to the team within an iota of team learning. The process of group coming together asserts role differentiation and cognitive consensus as implicitly shown by the framework.
The main quality of the model focuses on covering the three areas cognitive –recognizing the need to bring together adequate knowledge and skill to carry-out tasks; affection – being aware that exerting sufficient motivation and effort could facilitate accomplishing the task to an acceptable level of performance and psychomotor – knowing that activities and communication and the importance of coordinating them as vital factors in accomplishing tasks in an efficient and productive manner. Other merit of the framework is putting importance on schema similarity. Schema similarity is the compatibility of structures within the team. To wit, the team schema similarity, as impliedly shown in the framework, focuses both on method and content. In this way, the organization could emphasize team cognition and their group sensemaking.
The significance of the model is evident in increasing the success rate of the organization from four fundamental levels. The learnings that the model suggests are as follows: for team productivity, the model proposes the clarifications of the goals and the possibility to reassess goals, how the organization measures performance and team output versus standards; for team satisfaction, the model underpins supportive working environment and the barriers that led to feelings of resentment, team learning and accommodating changes; for individual growth, the model implies the importance of individual contribution as team members, improving skills, the hindrances of achieving growth and making others understand the idea of individual growth needs; and for organizational gains, the model advocates how the team benefit the organization or how the team contribute to the organizational growth, the consistency of team goals and the subsequent integration with other units.
The framework teaches us that there is no other way for an organization to succeed but to involve all the team members. Team effectiveness is a resultant mutual gain for both the organization and the individuals. It also tells us that achieving goals and objectives essential for both organization and members is a collaborative and interaction-based. The model also edifies us that identifying the importance of group is central to psychological and physical well-being since they reflect a basic human need which is to belong. Base on this, we can also say that the model is teaching us that group behaviour support the objective of the management rather than undermine them.
Bibliography
Thompson, L. L. (2003). Making the Team A Guide for Managers. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Custom Essay Writing
Australia
Send us your essay instructions. We write
it for you.
Only AUD$27
per page.
www.ivythesis.com
Malaysia Essay Writing
Send us your essay assignment. We write it
for you.
Only
RM
40/ page.
www.ivythesis.com
Singapore Essay Assistance
Have a hard time finishing your
assignment.
We write it for you. Only SG$
25/ page.
www.ivythesis.com
I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! really nice post.
Thanks for your research on academic knowledge.
Posted by: Six Sigma Excellence | May 12, 2011 at 04:02 AM