I M P L E M E N TAT I O N

An Inside Look at
Six Sigma at GE
THE STORY OF THE
COMPANYS SIX SIGMA

NOTE: This article is excerpted from Leading Six Sigma: How To Break Through the
Six Sigma Hype and Radically Improve Your Business by Ronald Snee and Roger
Hoerl. The book will be published by Financial Times Prentice Hall in Fall 2002.

EXPERIENCES, FROM
THE BEGINNING.

By Roger
Hoerl, General
Electric Co.

great deal has been written about General Electrics (GE) Six Sigma
initiative; in fact, it has pretty much been beaten to death in the
media. However, while some of the published material on GEs Six
Sigma experiences has been accurate, much has been written from questionable second- or thirdhand sources and reads to those inside GE much like a
Tom Clancy novel: captivating, but pure fiction.
It seems everyone is an expert on what happened at GE, and it is becoming
difficult to separate fact from the myths that have sprung up. For example,
readers of popular management books and articles on Six Sigma might come
to one or more of the following erroneous conclusions:
GEs Six Sigma deployment was easy (it wasnt).

External consultants showed us how to do everything (they didnt).

Nonmanufacturing and design applications came at the very beginning
(they came later).
GE didnt make any mistakes along the way (it did).
I am not accusing previous authors with falsifying facts or deliberately misleading readers. On the contrary, most authors tended to accentuate the positive, and perhaps their role in these positives, leading casual readers to naturally come to the erroneous conclusion that there were no false steps or hurdles to overcome.
I have been intimately involved with GEs Six Sigma effort from its beginning in late 1995, and I would like to provide a more personal, firsthand
account of what it was like. In addition, I would like to set the record straight
on what really happened at GE. All views expressed are my personal opinion
and should not be construed as representing GE.

The BeginningJack Never Bluffs!

Within two months of starting at GEs R&D Center in Schenectady, NY, in
September 1995, I was told all employees at the center were to come to the
auditorium for an important video presentation. Having just left Scott Paper
Co., which had been downsized, dismantled and eventually sold to Kimberly
Clark by Al Dunlap, my expectations for such meetings were not high.
No one knew what to expect when we were informed Jack (CEO Jack
S I X

S I G M A

F O R U M

M A G A Z I N E

M AY

2 0 0 2

35

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

Children learn about

glass blowing at
Science Day.

Welch) had made a video he wanted to share with

every employee. (At GE, the CEO is commonly referred to by his or her first name. Its a symbol of informality, not disrespect.)
The video turned out to be short, only a few minutes.
It consisted of a brief statement from Jack explaining
GE was about to embark on a major new initiative
called Six Sigma. Jack noted there were a number of

quality related issues in the company, and he believed

Six Sigma was the solution. He said this initiative would
be the companys most important priority for the next
five years, and it would be a totally different company
at the end of that time because of it.
He was particularly proud GE had not invented Six
Sigma but was mature enough to overcome the NIH
(not invented here) syndrome and adopt a proven
methodology pioneered by others, such as Motorola
and AlliedSignal (now Honeywell). More details were
to follow from our individual business leaders.
Being somewhat skeptical of grandiose managerial
pronouncements, and perhaps tainted by my recent
experiences with Dunlap, I commented to a colleague
as we stepped outside the auditorium, That sounds
great, if hes really serious.
The colleague, who was aware I was new to GE, shot
back, Theres one thing you need to understand
about GE. Jack never bluffs.
What does that mean? I asked.

George Ryon demonstrates imaging technologies at Science Day.

36

M AY

2 0 0 2

W W W . A S Q . O R G

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

It means if Jack says hes going to do

something, hes going to do it. You can
take it to the bank.
That pretty much summarized my experiences over the next five years with Six
Sigma. Jack wasnt bluffing.
No Second Guessing
Within a few weeks, I attended the first
Master Black Belt (MBB) training session
held at GEs executive development center
in Crotonville, NY. The session was led by
Mikel Harry of the Six Sigma Academy. I
found Harry to be part Six Sigma guru,
part good old boy and part P.T. Barnumtype showman.
But what struck me most as I sat with
newly appointed MBBs from the various
GE businesses was the degree of focus
everyone had on what needed to be done.
No one debated over the merits of Six
Sigma or asked if the reported results from
AlliedSignal or Motorola were real. No
one wondered if Six Sigma would apply to Sharing best practices at a cross-business Design for Six Sigma conference.
GE or if this was just a repackaging of total
quality management.
Rather than debating these questions, virtually all considered, once the decision had been made there
the MBBs asked questions about how to implement it was no time to continue the debate. We had to focus
as quickly and effectively as possible. This is another on implementation. Leaders had to lead.
unique aspect of GE culture. There is a lot of debate
over important decisions, but once the decision is
made, there is little ongoing debate as to whether this
is really the correct decision or not. It was definitely
This year turned out to be a year of learning for
not the culture I was used to.
When my two colleagues and I got back to the R&D both GE and me. The major focus was on improvecenter, we were extremely excited about this initiative. ment of manufacturing processes using the measure,
We could see the tremendous potential of getting analyze, improve, control (MAIC) process. GE Capital
armies of talented people trained in a sound improve- (GEs financial services business) subsequently added
ment methodology, with full management support the define stage, where one ensures an appropriate
and commitment, systematically attacking the compa- project has been selected and is properly defined,
scoped and planned. This turned out to be one of sevnys biggest issues.
At an open debriefing meeting, we reported to the eral major enhancements GE made to Six Sigma, and
center what we learned at the session. The majority of the standard acronym changed to DMAIC.
Each business in GE began its own separate initiapeople shared our enthusiasm, although some were
skeptical. Unfortunately, both at the research center tive, but there was a lot of interaction and sharing of
and across GE, such rare skepticism led some leaders best practices, using the corporate executive council
and newly created councils for MBBs and quality leadto leave GE.
While such actions may seem severe, it goes back to ers (Champions). The opportunity to learn from othsomething Jack said: If executives could not support ers successes and failures within GE turned out to be
Six Sigma 100%, GE was simply not the right compa- a major advantage.
We made many common mistakes along the way,
ny for them. While it was acceptable to debate the
merits of Six Sigma while the decision was still being and each became a test of leaderships commitment.

The First Full Year1996

S I X

S I G M A

F O R U M

M A G A Z I N E

M AY

2 0 0 2

37

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

oriented people. These roles were intended to be

temporary developmental roles for future leaders of
the company. If this critical work could be delegated
to techies, there would never be a fundamental shift in
the companys genetic code, as Jack referred to it.
GE needed future leaders who had the experience of
being dedicated to process improvement work. This
important point was later reinforced in the 2000
Annual Report:

GEs research center MVP (most valuable player) Award winners and
their managers. The award winners are holding their products developed
through Design for Six Sigma.

For example, some businesses named part-time MBBs

and Black Belts (BBs). They wanted people to be
change agents and focus on breakthrough improvements while continuing to do their regular jobs. Of
course, this is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps once the
initial implementation was successfully completed and
we arrived at a steady state, this approach could work.
But we couldnt begin such a massive effort this way.
Fortunately, when businesses began reporting large
numbers of assigned MBBs and BBs to corporate
headquarters in Fairfield, CT, senior management
asked them to revise their numbers to include only
dedicated, full-time BBs and MBBs. The numbers
dropped dramatically, and these businesses realized
they were going to have to bite the bullet and dedicate
their Six Sigma resources.
Relative to people issues, there was suspicion that
some businesses were assigning people to the Six
Sigma effort who were simply available. Senior management insisted they put only their best people into
Six Sigma, but a businesss best people are usually busy
doing other important things. One of the common
problems with most business improvement initiatives
is that those who are available, or perhaps even those
who cant do anything else well, are often assigned to
work on these initiatives, while the best people are off
doing the really important stuff.
Therefore, the corporate office asked to see previous performance appraisals for those who were put
into BB and MBB roles. Thats when top performers
started quickly appearing in Six Sigma roles.
This ties to another important point: GE never
viewed MBB or BB as permanent roles for technically

38

M AY

2 0 0 2

W W W . A S Q . O R G

It is a reasonable guess that the next CEO of this

Company, decades down the road, is probably a Six
Sigma Black Belt or Master Black Belt somewhere in GE
right now, or on the verge of being offeredas all our
early-career (3-5 years) top 20% performers will bea
two-to-three-year Black Belt assignment. The generic
nature of a Black Belt assignment, in addition to its rigorous process discipline and relentless customer focus,
makes Six Sigma the perfect training for growing 21st
century GE leadership.1
Jeffrey Immelt had already been named Jacks successor as CEO, hence the next CEO mentioned
above will be Jeffs successor. This use of Six Sigma as
a developmental role for future leaders does not
appear to have been copied by many other companies. The assumption in most companies is leadership is OK, we just need to improve things in operations. Fortunately, despite its success, GE did not
(and still doesnt) have an arrogant culture. Senior
management realized even it had to continuously
learn and improve.
An Investment in the First Year
Financially, businesses started reporting huge savings from their initial projects. Were people stretching
the truth to make their business look better than it
really was? Leadership responded by requiring someone in the finance department to personally sign off
on each project, verifying the claimed savings were
real and noting specifically where they would show up
on the bottom line. Corporate auditors periodically
audited these evaluations.
The size of the reported savings from Six Sigma
projects decreased dramatically. It also became impossible to get credit for intangible benefits, such as customer satisfaction and impact of one process improvement on other processes in the same system.
Therefore, despite some healthy skepticism published
by various commentators,2, 3 I am quite confident the
reported savings from Six Sigma at GE have been
underestimated all along.

An artists rendering of the $100 million upgrade

to the research center.

This conservative estimation of benefits has been

even greater with Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) projects. Interestingly, the net payoff from Six Sigma in
1996 was negative: $200 million invested and savings
of $170 million generated. GEs leadership was OK
with this because it realized there were significant
start-up costs. Six Sigma was not intended to be a silver bullet or get rich quick scheme. In the first year,
businesses were pushed for activity, not necessarily
tangible results. This changed in 1997.

The Push for Tangible Benefits

Starting in 1997, businesses were held accountable
for their Six Sigma results. Jack had given them investment money to do things such as backfill MBBs and
BBs and conduct training, and now he expected a payoff. To reinforce the point, he publicly announced
that 40% of managers bonuses would be tied to Six
Sigma results. This certainly got peoples attention,
and in 1997 the money began to seriously roll in. The
official numbers for that year were $380 million invested and $700 million hard savings. Remember, all these
numbers were rigorously audited. No creative
accounting was involved.
Also in 1997, GE began to focus on three initiatives
S I X

started in 1996: commercial quality (CQ) applications,

the creation of Green Belts (GBs) and DFSS. As previously noted, Six Sigma initially focused on improvements in manufacturing applications. However, GE
Capital, a large financial services conglomerate in
itself, made up approximately 40% of GEs profits.
Focusing on manufacturing would miss at least 40% of
the potential benefits to the company. Similarly, even
in an engineering company like GE Aircraft Engines or
GE Power Systems, only a small percentage of the people or work processes were directly associated with
manufacturing.
Manufacturing businesses have accounts payable and
accounts receivable processes, inventory management
processes and pricing processes, each of which involve
large sums of money. We gradually discovered there is
more money to be found, and more easily obtained, in
these processes than there is in manufacturing. We originally referred to these processes as transactional quality, and later changed the name to CQ.
While there is a lot written on this area today, GE
had to pioneer this field at the time. We couldnt find
another company who had done this in a significant
way or who knew a lot about it. This was also a learning experience for me, as most of my previous experience had been in manufacturing and engineering
improvements.

S I G M A

F O R U M

M A G A Z I N E

M AY

2 0 0 2

39

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

Master Black Belts at the research center receiving their certificates.

In 1997, I was asked to focus on CQ and, on a leap

of faith, believed Six Sigma would apply equally well
here. At the time I admittedly had no idea how, but
one project in credit card collections resulting in
annual savings of $2.9 million solidified my conviction
that Six Sigma would apply anywhere.4 Surprisingly,
most other corporations continue to focus on manufacturing in their Six Sigma efforts. There are a couple showcase nonmanufacturing examples, but most
efforts remain stuck in manufacturing.
DFSS and a Critical Mass of Green Belts
The second big push in 1997 was DFSS. We were
discovering there were limits to the level of improvement you could obtain with existing processes. At
some point, you needed a new design to reach a
breakthrough level of improvement. This was as true
of soft processes, such as manual account reconciliation, as it was of hard processes, such as antiquated
manufacturing equipment. As with CQ applications,
there was no pat solution for us to adopt.
So we enlisted the assistance of a consultant who
brought valuable additional tools and a framework on
which to integrate them. Integrating these tools and

40

M AY

2 0 0 2

W W W . A S Q . O R G

framework into what we already had, we developed an

overall process for DFSS analogous to DMAIC: define,
measure, analyze, design, verify (DMADV).
Rolling out this process across GE became a focal
point for corporate R&D and led to success stories
such as the LightSpeed CT scanner from GE Medical
Systems, which reduced full body CT scans from about
three minutes to less than 30 seconds and brought $60
million in orders in its first 90 days of release.5
Growing the business through DFSS-designed new
products and services remains a key objective in 2002.
The third big push in 1997 was to create a critical
mass of GBs to complement the MBBs and BBs.
Businesses were putting their best people into MBB
and BB roles. These people were not only receiving
intangible rewards, such as recognition and visibility,
but would soon start receiving tangible rewards, such
as bonuses and stock option grants.
Understandably, many of those not selected for MBB
or BB roles, especially those who wanted to be, began
to feel left out. A we vs. they mindset among those who
were directly involved in Six Sigma and those who
werent began to develop. This could have caused serious problems if not addressed promptly. The solution
was to get everyone in the game. Obviously, nothing

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

less would be required to completely transform

the company. Actually doing this was a lot easier
said than done.
GBs were those trained in Six Sigma methodology who applied it to their work part time.
They would still be accountable for their regular jobs, but would also do Six Sigma projects.
With dedicated MBBs and BBs ensuring
momentum was maintained, this move turned
out to be an excellent way to make sure everyone could get into the Six Sigma game. And just
about everyone did.
It was first announced GB status would be a
prerequisite for promotions to management
and for the receipt of stock option grants. Later
it was announced being GB trained (and on the
way to certification) by the end of 1997 would
be a condition of employment for all professionals.
Personally, from late 1995 on, I had been
looking for evidence that senior management
wasnt going to back up its Six Sigma pronouncements, but by now I was a believer. Jack
definitely wasnt bluffing.

Science Day at the research center. Employees share aspects of applied science
with area schoolchildren.

A Refocus on Customers

Finance, Digitization and the Path Forward

The focus of Six Sigma changed again in 1998.

While ecstatic with the bottom-line impact Six Sigma
was having on the company, senior management was
disturbed with some feedback it was hearing from key
customers.
The quote in the 1998 Annual Report was: When
do I get the benefits of Six Sigma? When does my company get to experience the GE I read about in the GE
Annual Report?6
Up until this point most projects focused on opportunities for GE to generate internal savings. While
many of these process improvements ultimately
impacted customers positively, many did not. It was
certainly fair to say Six Sigma had done more for GEs
stockholders than for GEs customers.
In 1998, GEs direction was to focus more projects
on direct customer issues, such as product delivery
processes. In addition, it placed a prime emphasis on
reducing variation in such processes, not just fixing
the average.
The 1998 Annual Report is one of the few times a
Fortune 500 CEO provided a detailed explanation of
why focus on the average is insufficient and why one
must also reduce process variation.

In November 1998, I became the quality leader of

the corporate audit staff (CAS), which is a part of corporate finance. While maintaining a core competency
in financial auditing, this organization is actually
much broader and devotes considerable effort to driving corporate initiatives, such as Six Sigma, globalization, services growth and e-commerce, compliance
issues and acquisitions. It obtains additional influence
from the fact it is a key leadership development program in GE, and a number of key business leaders are
CAS graduates.
The head of CAS wanted to accelerate the staffs Six
Sigma efforts and make sure they were in a position to
be true Six Sigma leaders, particularly in financial
applications. I knew virtually nothing about finance,
but believed Six Sigma could and should be applied
everywhere. For me, it was somewhat of a challenge to
prove my belief.
Initially, some auditors attitudes included such
myths as finance is different; our job is to audit others
implementation; and were not a factory. However,
both the leader of CAS and his subsequent replacement made it perfectly clear we were going to do Six
Sigma and do it right. The only question was how to

S I X

S I G M A

F O R U M

M A G A Z I N E

M AY

2 0 0 2

41

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

do it in finance. This won 80% of the battle. I was able

to focus entirely on deployment, without wasting time
trying to convince people to do it. This reinforced my
belief that there is no substitute for leadership.
Details of CAS Six Sigma efforts have been documented elsewhere.7, 8 Let it suffice to say Six Sigma
went from being added work to a means to do better
finance. CAS, in partnership with GE businesses, pioneered use of Six Sigma in a variety of application
areas, such as digitization (e-commerce), cash flow,
collections, product delivery, reserves, the auditing
process, hedging of foreign currencies, compliance
and acquisition integration. Table 1 lists some of the
financial applications of CAS Six Sigma projects.
The best news was that we were getting people early
in their careers. Therefore, they would carry this continuous process improvement mindset to each of their
subsequent positions within the company, perhaps
even as far as senior management. By the time I left
CAS in 2000, I wondered why I spent so many years in
manufacturing and engineering.

Digitization and Six Sigma

In 1999, dotcoms were all the rage, and it was generally believed small start-ups were in a better position
than large conglomerates to succeed in e-commerce.
Blue chips were seen as too slow to change and stuck
in a traditional business paradigm. GE took the

Internet very seriously, however, and began pushing

Web based business and internal digitization. Many
businesses started putting their quality leaders and
MBBs into e-commerce roles. Part of the rationale for
this move was that these tended to be their top people,
and part was due to a desire to put people with a Six
Sigma mindset into e-commerce.
At the research center, we took a DFSS approach to
digitizing business processes, such as cash application,
deal approval and new product development. The Six
Sigma rigor forced us to take a holistic approach and
avoid the rush to get Web sites up and running without thinking through the overall business process.
This enabled us to avoid a fulfillment trap.
Many dotcoms were great at putting up Web sites
and taking orders, but they had poorly designed fulfillment processes behind them. While I have only
anecdotal evidence that Six Sigma significantly
impacted our e-commerce efforts, it seems a strange
coincidence that a huge conglomerate such as GE was
named the e-commerce company of the year by some
business publications, including InternetWeek.9

Making It Work for Customers

The focus in 2000 was primarily on making Six
Sigma work for customers and institutionalizing it into
GEs culture. The push to enable customers to feel the
benefits of Six Sigma began some time ago, but we
were now taking it to a new level. We
progressed from doing projects that
would benefit customers to partnering with customers on joint projects
to now having GE BBs go into customer operations and do projects
solely for the benefit of the customer.
This was referred to as at the customer, for the customer (ACFC).
Most of these projects are done at
GEs expense with no direct monetary
reward for GE. The primary motivation is improved customer relationships and loyalty. Competitors can
always cut their prices to match ours,
and they may be able to provide similar
product features in some cases, but

Overhead view of a technical conference at the

research center.

42

M AY

2 0 0 2

W W W . A S Q . O R G

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

Table 1. 20 Ways To Apply Six Sigma to Finance

1. Reduce average and variation in days outstanding of accounts receivable. Collect money faster.
2. Optimize timing of invoice payment in accounts payable. Pay in time to collect discounts, but otherwise hold on to the
money as long as the terms allow.

3. Manage costs of public accounting firms. Investigate why you sometimes pay more per hour than other times and why
you sometimes have highly paid accounting people doing lower level work.

4. Skip tracing in collections. Determine financially optimal strategies for finding consumers who have skipped on
accounts.

5. Determine the best way to factor inventory. Pay a third party to hold it on their books. Take into account several criteria, including net income and cash flow.

6. Determine the best way to factor accounts receivable. Sell your accounts receivable to a third party to enhance cash
flow, while maintaining profitability.

7. Close the books faster free up time of finance resources.

8. Improve the audit process so its more accurate (fewer missed issues) and faster.
9. Reduce the number of manual account reconciliations. This relates to several other applications.
10. Improve the acquisition process. Faster and fewer resources equal fewer mistakes.
11. Realize revenue from long-term service agreements faster. Accounting rules require equal revenue realization over the
life of the contract unless you can prove your costs will not be equal.

12. Hedge foreign currencies. Improve how you convert foreign currency to U.S. dollars. Because all financial measures are
generally reported in dollars, this can have a huge impact on the bottom line for international companies.

13. Reduce variation in cash flow. Sometimes cash flow follows profitability, sometimes it doesnt. Why? Because theres
so much creative accounting today analysts often want an explanation if cash flow isnt increasing at the same rate as
earnings.

14. Credit score to improve your ability to predict which individuals or businesses are good credit risks and which arent.
15. Make accurate journal entries. A common rule of thumb says most businesses have a 3 to 4% error rate in journal
entries, which results in a lot of rework.

16. Ensure accurate financial forecasting.

17. Improve accuracy and reduce cycle time of standard financial reports. Cycle time relates to freeing up finance
resources and getting more timely information.

18. File federal, state and local taxes to reduce cycle time and make sure you are not overpaying.
19. Better manage the pension fund by obtaining higher rates of return. The federal government requires certain reserves,
but if you manage the pension fund well, you can take the overfunded amount to the bottom line.

20. Ensure payroll accuracy, including deductions for taxes and benefits.

none can offer the same level of Six Sigma expertise.

This unique benefit gives GE a significant advantage in
wooing major customers. More than 2,000 ACFC projects were documented in 2000.
In terms of institutionalizing Six Sigma into GEs
culture, GE has actually been successful doing this
S I X

with major initiatives. For example, the company had

an informal team problem solving initiative in the
1980s called work-out.
While this is no longer an initiative, both the term
work-out and the use of informal team problem solving are still commonly used at GE.
S I G M A

F O R U M

M A G A Z I N E

M AY

2 0 0 2

43

An Inside Look at Six Sigma at GE

Some of the

best people in the company

were FREED FROM THEIR NORMAL DUTIES

to

focus 100% on Six Sigma.

One specific example of the institutionalization of

Six Sigma was its inclusion in the 2000 update to the
GE values,10 and again in the 2002 update.11 Within
GE, employees are formally evaluated on the degree
to which they demonstrate the GE values as part of
their annual performance appraisal. This has a significant impact on their overall evaluation, so the values
are taken quite seriously.

A Reinvigoration in 2001
In 2001, Jeff Immelt announced a reinvigoration of
Six Sigma. This was an important step symbolically
because there was some concern the emphasis on Six
Sigma might decline once Jack Welch retired.
The reinvigoration included a push to further
increase the percentage of senior executives with dedicated Six Sigma experience, acceleration of ACFC
projects (of which there are more than 10,000
planned for 2002) and standardization of BB course
material and certification criteria across the company.
Looking into the near future, one could anticipate
further integration of Six Sigma into the supply chain,
working with both customers and suppliers on joint
training and applications.
It also looks as though Six Sigma will remain a cornerstone of GEs executive development system.
Speculation has been swirling for some time that the
company will get into the Six Sigma consulting business, but there is no indication to date of this actually
happening.
Going forward, the greatest challenge will be ensuring the focus remains on tangible results and does not
regress into the bureaucratic ticket-punching exercise
many companies have experienced with various
improvement initiatives.

Several points about GEs experiences should be

emphasized. First, GE was already one of the worlds
most respected companies, and it was doing quite well

M AY

REFERENCES
1. GEs 2000 Annual Report, www.ge.com/annual00/index.html.
2. S.M. Paton, First Word, Quality Digest, August 2001.
3. Anonymous, Last Word, Quality Digest, August 2001.
4. Gerald J. Hahn, Necip Doganaksoy and Roger W. Hoerl, The Evolution
of Six Sigma, Quality Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3.
5. GEs 1998 Annual Report, www.ge.com/annual98/index.htm.
6. Ibid.
7. Rekha Agrawal and Roger W. Hoerl, Commercial Quality: The Next
Wave in Statistical Thinking, Proceedings of the Section on Physical and
Engineering Sciences (Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, 1999).
8. R.W. Hoerl, Six Sigma Black Belts, What Do They Need to Know?
Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 33, No. 4.

Its not easy

44

financially when it embarked on Six Sigma. Its efforts

were not directed at solving an immediate business
crisis. Why wait until you have a crisis before you start
improving?
In addition, senior leadership, especially Jack
Welch, provided unyielding commitment to get the
initiative going and ensure its continued success. This
will not be easy for other companies to copy.
Six Sigma was directed toward specific, tangible
objectives, including financial objectives. The culture
changed as a result of delivering tangible benefits,
not because of a focus on the culture itself.
Furthermore, some of the best people in the company, in virtually all business functions, were freed
from their normal duties to focus 100% on Six Sigma.
I dont think it can be done effectively with part-time
resources.
Lastly, GE used a formal and structured deployment
plan that included the required infrastructure (the
Six Sigma organization, project selection systems and
benefit verification systems).
This supporting infrastructure is one of the unique
aspects of Six Sigma versus many previous improvement initiatives.

2 0 0 2

W W W . A S Q . O R G

9. Bob Violino, E-business Leaders Light the Way, InternetWeek, June 12,
2002, special edition.
10. GEs 2000 Annual Report, www.ge.com/annual00/index.html.
11. GEs Web site, www.ge.com.