BUSI 760 Week 4 DB Forum 2 Reply Example

Discussion Board Forum 2 Replies: Testing Classmates' Method Choices

BUSI 760 Quality Management and Productivity, Discussion Board Forum 2 Reply

Thread by [Student Name]

The classmates and their threads are composites standing in for the course's own; the books and the published research are real; the week, points and readings follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 760, which keeps the reply instructions inside the course.

Reply to Andrea

Andrea, your diagnosis of the mortgage lender's cycle time problem was convincing. You showed that underwriting times range from 6 to 31 days for similar loans and that most of the delay comes from loans waiting for documentation that underwriters request one item at a time. Unexplained variation of that kind is a strong argument for Six Sigma, and I agree with your choice.

I want to ask about the goal. Your project charter sets a target of reducing average cycle time from 41 days to 20 within six months. Linderman et al. (2003) examined Six Sigma through goal theory, which holds that specific, challenging goals generally produce higher performance than vague ones. They proposed that Six Sigma's explicit goals are one reason it works, but they also noted that goal difficulty interacts with the knowledge and method available to reach it. Their article offered propositions for research rather than tested results, so the evidence is not yet in, but the argument suggests that a goal can be too hard as well as too easy. A team that believes 20 days is impossible may stop trying, especially in a first project.

Starbird and Cavanagh (2011) emphasize that engaged teams own their processes and their targets. Could your underwriters help set an interim goal, perhaps 30 days by the end of the measure phase, with the 20-day target held for the full project? That would keep the challenge while letting the team see progress early. It would also give your sponsor a checkpoint: if the team reaches 30 days by the end of the measure phase, the full goal looks credible, and if not, the data gathered by then will show which of the documentation steps still drives the delay.

Reply to Caleb

Caleb, your choice of lean for the machine shop makes sense. Parts spend most of their time waiting in queues between machines, and your value stream map showed that only about 4 percent of total lead time is spent actually machining. That is the flow problem lean is designed for.

My question concerns sequence. Your plan introduces cellular layout, setup reduction, kanban and daily huddles all in the first year. In a survey of lean practitioners across 83 factories owned by two multinationals, Netland (2016) asked what managers should do to make lean succeed. Respondents largely agreed on a general list of success factors, including management commitment and involvement of employees, and the stage of implementation shifted their priorities only slightly. A shop at the start of lean may need the basics of commitment and involvement more than a long list of new tools. That aligns with Starbird and Cavanagh (2011), who argue that changing processes without bringing teams along tends to fail.

Would it be realistic to start with one product family in one cell, with operators helping design the layout, and add kanban only once the cell runs smoothly? The results from that cell could then persuade the rest of the shop. Operators who helped build the first cell would also become the most credible teachers for the second, which spreads involvement faster than any training course could.

References

Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., & Choo, A. S. (2003). Six Sigma: A goal-theoretic perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00087-6

Netland, T. H. (2016). Critical success factors for implementing lean production: The effect of contingencies. International Journal of Production Research, 54(8), 2433-2448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1096976

Starbird, D., & Cavanagh, R. (2011). Building engaged team performance: Align your processes and people to achieve game-changing business results. McGraw-Hill.