|
|||
|
|||
|
SICK SIGMA? I think you nailed this one ["Sick Sigma?" August/September 2002]. When I was at NBC, I found Six Sigma to be problematic, a lot of language and protocol, but not necessarily a practical tool. For the most part, Six Sigma simply didn''t work in an environment that did not rely upon repetitive processes. NBC is an anomaly within the General Electric Co. portfolio. It is dependent upon daily creativity and subtle artistry (including not only what winds up on the television screen, but the behind-the-scenes work—legal, financial, deal-making, etc.—that allows for any show to ever be realized in the first place) and the vagaries of the entertainment industry. NBC struggled to come up with one valid and "material" Six Sigma application. After turning over every conceivable stone, we introduced some efficiencies in ad sales and ad inventory management. Even this was a forced fit. Personally, I found Six Sigma to be more effective and applicable as a tool that [former GE Chief Executive Jack] Welch used to motivate and reward, and fortify the ever-present GE sense of hierarchy. He constructed an entire mythology (not meant as a pejorative) that most operating divisions took as a serious, urgent message from the GE executive pantheon. But I am not convinced Six Sigma is useful in a creative environment where innovation is a lifeblood. —Kenneth Krushel
Your article presents arguments that Six Sigma isn't applicable in all environments. We concur. However, our comments were twisted by those promoting competing methodologies to make it seem that we were arguing for Six Sigma as a cure for whatever ails you--a straw man that our opponents could then knock down. Six Sigma tools, alone, cannot guarantee business success. However, when deployed correctly, Six Sigma creates a way of thinking that enables success. Though many corporations initially use Six Sigma only to improve profitability, they quickly learn that Six Sigma is one of the best leadership-development programs available today. Speaking from our experience in working with 50 major corporations in facilitating 21,000 process-improvement projects, the real benefit of Six Sigma is how it helps companies change their culture. Companies become customer-focused, fact-based, and data-driven. This culture change is altering the way the world looks at American business, and we are proud to have contributed to it. —Daniel T. Laux
Your article makes some important points about the limits of classic Six Sigma. In particular, too many companies solve the wrong problem to the third decimal point. At Motorola, we recognize this and have undertaken a number of efforts to reposition what Six Sigma means, how it can be applied, and how it can be a successful tool to improve business in functional areas from marketing to finance, and manufacturing to sales. At the same time, there was an error in your article. Although Mikel Harry was involved with some of the early efforts of Six Sigma, he is not the inventor. Bill Smith is. —Matt Barney
NO MORE EXCUSES Heidi Mason and Tim Rohner present a compelling case for corporate venturing as a critical component of a successful long-term strategy for corporate growth ["No More Excuses!" June/July 2002]. The Boeing Ventures experience—in creating multiple ventures that have either been spun out or spun in to our business units—validates the logic of looking beyond surface excuses. We create value three ways:
Corporate venturing—of any kind—is hard work and, as we are fond of saying at Boeing, not for the faint of heart. It's a multiyear journey that requires commitment, iterative learning, and missionary zeal on the part of its practitioners. But the rewards can be considerable for those willing to stay the course. —Anil Shrikhande
EXTRA! EXTRA! I think you—and most, if not all, financial analysts—let [Dow Jones CEO] Peter Kann off the hook too easily ["Extra! Extra!" August/September 2002]. To wit: while the Online Journal may have 650,000 subscribers, Kann has yet to provide the numbers that show it is making money, or even breaking even. Unfortunately, as with so much of Dow Jones's financial reporting, no outside observer can say because the Online Journal and other results are run through a blender that makes it impossible to answer such questions. All we're left with are Kann's assurances. That's just not good enough. A related point that I have yet to see addressed is the extent to which the Online Journal has cannibalized sales of the print version. We may assume some cannibalization has, in fact, occurred—print circulation is down 10% from its peak, despite population growth and a greater interest in business news—but its effect on revenue and profit has not been reported. It seems to me that such an analysis has to be a component of any analysis of the online venture's success. —Andy Zipser
THE SEVEN MYTHS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Marc Rosenberg's article ["The Seven Myths of Knowledge Management," August/September 2002] is absolutely on target. Companies would do well to heed his advice. I'd add an eighth and related myth: If you really want to succeed with knowledge management, you have to make a large upfront investment. We've seen so many companies spend millions of dollars on technology that no one uses—or on centralizing files that no one reads. The great successes start smaller: People experiment, monitor what's working, learn some lessons, tweak their systems, capitalize on the experience of people who've done this before, pay attention to what works in their culture, and eventually expand. Especially in a tough economy, there is no need for an organization to start big. It's important to make progress in harnessing the collective wisdom of an organization, but you can do that with a pilot, while drastically increasing the chances you'll ultimately get it right. —Diane Hessan
CINCINNATI BELL(WETHER) Your article, ["Cincinnati Bell(Wether)," June/July 2002], caught my attention; the article describes a dynamic company executing a strategy that mirrors our own. But is Cincinnati Bell the first and only telecommunications provider to implement "convergence and bundling" strategies? GCI doesn't think so. Network and business convergence is also proceeding rapidly at GCI, Alaska's premier integrated communications provider (ICP). In the early 1990s, GCI—then a competitive, long-distance carrier—anticipated the convergence of voice, video, data, and Internet services and began acquiring the entertainment cable companies in Alaska. In 1997, we became a CLEC and started bundling our products. Today, we are delivering entertainment, data, and Internet access over our network. How's that for converged, bundled, and delivered? —Tony Lewkowski
|
Leveraging the existing portfolio: While we amortize our research-and-development and innovation efforts across our core business, that same intellectual property can be applied in nontraditional market sectors. For example, autonomous underwater vehicle technology is applicable not only to military needs, which we have traditionally served, but is just as applicable to deepwater surveys for oil and gas exploration. Tapping into the existing portfolio of proven technologies can provide a solid foundation for corporate venture programs.
