[校对]第二篇—— Six Sigma Costs And Savings

Six Sigma Costs And Savings


In the world of Six Sigma quality, the saying holds true: it takes money to save money using the Six Sigma quality methodology. You can't expect to significantly reduce costs and increase sales using Six Sigma without investing in training, organizational infrastructure and culture evolution.

Many people say that it takes money to make money. In the world of Six Sigma quality, the saying also holds true: it takes money to save money using the Six Sigma quality methodology. You can't expect to significantly reduce costs and increase sales using Six Sigma without investing in training, organizational infrastructure and culture evolution.
Sure you can reduce costs and increase sales in a localized area of a business using the Six Sigma quality methodology -- and you can probably do it inexpensively by hiring an ex-Motorola or GE Black Belt. I like to think of that scenario as a "get rich quick" application of Six Sigma. But is it going to last when a manager is promoted to a different area or leaves the company? Probably not. If you want to produce a culture shift within your organization, a shift that causes every employee to think about how their actions impact the customer and to communicate within the business using a consistent language, it's going to require a resource commitment. It takes money to save money.
How much financial commitment does Six Sigma require and what magnitude of financial benefit can you expect to receive? We all have people that we must answer to -- and rhetoric doesn't pay the bills or keep the stockholders happy (anymore). I was tired of reading web pages or hearing people say:
"Companies of all types and sizes are in the midst of a quality revolution. GE saved $12 billion over five years and added $1 to its earnings per share. Honeywell (AlliedSignal) recorded more than $800 million in savings."

"GE produces annual benefits of over $2.5 billion across the organization from Six Sigma."

"Motorola reduced manufacturing costs by $1.4 billion from 1987-1994."

"Six Sigma reportedly saved Motorola $15 billion over the last 11 years."
The above quotations may in fact be true, but pulling the numbers out of the context of the organization's revenues does nothing to help a company figure out if Six Sigma is right for them. For example, how much can a $10 million or $100 million company expect to save?
I investigated what the companies themselves had to say about their Six Sigma costs and savings -- I didn't believe anything that was written on third party websites, was estimated by "experts," or was written in books on the topic. I reviewed literature and only captured facts found in annual reports, website pages and presentations found on company websites.
While recent corporate events like the Enron and WorldCom scandals might lead us to believe that not everything we read in a company's annual report is valid, I am going to provide the following information based on the assumption that these Six Sigma companies operate with integrity until proven otherwise.
I investigated Motorola, Allied Signal, GE and Honeywell. I choose these four companies because they are the companies that invented and refined Six Sigma -- they are the most mature in their deployments and culture changes. As the Motorola website says, they invented it in 1986. Allied Signal deployed Six Sigma in 1994, GE in 1995. Honeywell was included because Allied Signal merged with Honeywell in 1999 (they launched their own initiative in 1998). Many companies have deployed Six Sigma between the years of GE and Honeywell -- we'll leave those companies for another article.

Table 1: Companies And The Year They Implemented Six Sigma
Company NameYear Began Six Sigma
Motorola (NYSE:MOT)1986
Allied Signal (Merged With Honeywell in 1999)1994
GE (NYSE:GE)1995
Honeywell (NYSE:HON)1998
Ford (NYSE:F)2000


Table 2 identifies by company, the yearly revenues, the Six Sigma costs (investment) per year, where available, and the financial benefits (savings). There are many blanks, especially where the investment is concerned. I've presented as much information as the companies have publicly disclosed.

Table 2: Six Sigma Cost And Savings By Company
YearRevenue ($B)Invested ($B)% Revenue InvestedSavings ($B)% Revenue Savings
Motorola
1986-2001356.9(e)ND-16 14.5
Allied Signal
199815.1ND-0.5 23.3
GE
199679.20.20.30.20.2
199790.80.40.411.1
1998100.50.50.41.31.2
1999111.60.60.521.8
1996-1999382.11.60.44.4 31.2
Honeywell
199823.6ND-0.52.2
199923.7ND-0.62.5
200025.0ND-0.72.6
1998-200072.3ND-1.8 42.4
Ford
2000-200243.9ND-1 62.3
Key:
$B = $ Billions, United States
(e) = Estimated, Yearly Revenue 1986-1992 Could Not Be Found
ND = Not Disclosed
Note: Numbers Are Rounded To The Nearest Tenth


Although the complete picture of investment and savings by year is not present, Six Sigma savings can clearly be significant to a company. The savings as a percentage of revenue vary from 1.2% to 4.5%. And what we can see from the GE deployment is that a company shouldn't expect more than a breakeven the first year of implementation. Six Sigma is not a "get rich quick" methodology. I like to think of it like my retirement savings plan -- Six Sigma is a get rich slow methodology -- the take-away point being that you will get rich if you plan properly and execute consistently.
As GE's 1996 annual report states, "It has been estimated that less than Six Sigma quality, i.e., the three-to-four Sigma levels that are average for most U.S. companies, can cost a company as much as 10-15% of its revenues. For GE, that would mean $8-12 billion." With GE's 2001 revenue of $111.6 billion, this would translate into $11.2-16.7 billion of savings. Although $2 billion worth of savings in 1999 is impressive, it appears that even GE hasn't been able to yet capture the losses due to poor quality -- or maybe they're above the three-to-four Sigma levels that are the average for most U.S. companies?
In either case, 1.2-4.5% of revenue is significant and should catch the eye of any CEO or CFO. For a $30 million a year company, that can translate into between $360,000 and $1,350,000 in bottom-line-impacting savings per year. It takes money to make money. Is investing in Six Sigma quality, your employees and your organization's culture worth the money? Only you and your executive leadership team can decide the answer to that question.
References:

1. Motorola Six Sigma Services. Motorola University. 22 July 2002 <http://mu.motorola.com/sigmasplash.htm%3E;.
2. AlliedSignal Inc. 1998 Annual Report. Honeywell Inc. 22 July 2002 <http://www.honeywell.com/inves ... E%3B.
3. GE Investor Relations Annual Reports. General Electric Company. 22 July 2002 <http://www.ge.com/company/inve ... E%3B.
4. Honeywell Annual Reports. Honeywell Inc. 22 July 2002 <http://investor.honeywell.com/ir ... ticker=HON&script=700>.
5. Better Understand Six Sigma Plus With Honeywell's Special PowerPoint Presentation. Honeywell Inc. 22 July 2002 <http://www.honeywell.com/sixsi ... E%3B.
6. Quality Digest, "Six Sigma at Ford Revisited", June 2003, p. 30. <http://www.qualitydigest.com/jun ... rticle.shtml>.

参考译文：
> 六西格玛成本和节约

在六西格玛的质量世界里，有一个真理：使用六西格玛理论先花钱，后赚钱。如果不将钱投入在培训，机构改革和文化发展上，就不可能降低成本，提高销售额。

许多人都说，先花钱，后赚钱。在六西格玛质量世界里，这个真理同样适用。如果不将钱投入在培训，机构改革和文化发展上，就不可能降低成本，提高销售额。

当然你可以在某个本地化的商业领域内使用此方法，你也可以通过找Motorola或者GE的黑带来协助，从而节约成本。但是我认为这是一种六西格玛的“快速致富”。可能导致的后果是管理者提升到某一个领域或者离开这家公司。如果你想改变你公司的文化，一种员工通过他们的行动影响顾客的文化，一种通过一致的商业语言进行沟通的文化。你必须得进行投资。先花钱，才能赚钱。

要达到你的预期收益，需要花费多少金钱呢？我希望大家都能回答这个问题。胡思乱想，天马行空并不能保证利润，保证让股东们喜笑颜开。我已经很厌烦读到这些网页和听到人们说：
“所有的公司都在进行质量改革。GE在过去一年节约120亿美元，股票平均增加收益1美元。Honeywell（Allied Signal）节约了8亿美元。”
&#61472;“实行六西格玛后，GE年收益超过25亿美元。”
“1987-1994年间，Motorola减少生产成本14亿美元。”
“六西格玛使Motorola在过去的11年里节约了150亿美元。”

上面的数字引用可能是正确的，但却没有表明六西格是否对公司有用。举个例子来说，一个1千万美元或者1亿美元的公司期望节约多少成本，即节约成本所占收入的百分比？

我调查了很多公司，这些公司表明了他们的成本和节约费用。我不相信任何第三方所谓“专家”公布的数据，也不相信写在书上的数据。我重新检查，并只从以下途径获取信息：年报和公司网页。

但是最近的联合事件比如说Enron和WorldCom，可能会让我们认为公司年报数据的不可信。我尝试提供这些六西格玛公司的年报数据，假设它们是可信的，并证明它。

我调查了Motorola，Allied Signal，GE和Honeywell。因为这些公司发明和重新定义了六西格玛，它们拥有最初的原型和文化革新。Motorola网页显示，他们于1986年发明了六西格玛。Allied Signal和GE分别于19994年和1995年实施了六西格玛。引入Honeywell是因为Allied Signal于1999年合并了Honeywell（而Honeywell于1998年引入了六西格玛）。在GE和Honeywell开始实施期间，其实仍存在很多其他公司引入了六西格玛，我们会在另外一
篇文章中讨论它们。

Table 1

表格1：实施六西格玛的公司和年份
公司名称开始实施六西格玛的年份
Motorola(NYSE:MOT)1986
Allied Signal(与Honeywell合并于1999年)1994
GE(NYSE:GE)1995
Honeywell(NYSE:HON)1998
Ford(NYSE:F)2000



图2按以下标识分类：公司，年收入，每年六西格玛成本（投资），什么地方有效，节约了多少费用。在很多地方都存在空白，特别涉及到六西格玛成本方面。我尝试从公开的年报里面挖掘数据，并提供更多的信息给大家。

Table 2

表格2：每个公司的六西格玛成本和节约
年份收入（$B）成本（$B）成本占收入比例节约（$B）节约占收入比例
Motorola
1986-2001356.9(e)ND-164.5
Allied Signal
199815.1ND-0.53.3
GE
199679.20.20.30.20.2
199790.80.40.411.1
1998100.50.50.41.31.2
1999111.60.60.521.8
1996-1999382.11.60.44.41.2
Honeywell
199823.6ND-0.52.2
199923.7ND-0.62.5
200025.0ND-0.72.6
1998-200072.3ND-1.82.4
Ford
2000-200243.9ND-12.3
注意：$B：百万美元(e)：估计值，1986-1992间收入数据未找到ND：未披露所有数据四舍五入到一位小数


尽管完整的调查报告图片并未展示，六西格玛的作用也是不可小觑的。每年节约费用从1.2%上升到4.5%。从GE的实施期间来看，第一年并未达到如期的效果。六西格玛不是一个“快速致富”的工具和方法。我认为这就像我的隐退计划，六西格玛是一个长期缓慢才能见效的方法。如果你计划正确并严格执行的话，它会让你达到你制定的那个效果，获得更多的金钱。

GE 1996年报显示，GE被评估低于全美公司的六西格玛水平（约为3/4），其花费成本为收入的10-15%，也就是80-120亿美元。2001年收入1116亿美元，节约费用112-167亿美元。尽管1999年节约费用20亿美元，但同时显示GE并没有能力保持，因为其品质上存在问题。或者他们已经超过了当时全美的六西格玛水平（3/4）？

不管是哪种情况，CEO或CFO都会发现年收入明显增长了1.2-4.5%。对于一个年收入3000万美元的公司来说，也就意味着最低限度每年节约了36万到135万美元。先花钱，后赚钱。投资六西格玛，你的雇员和公司得到了更好的收益吗？只有你的执行团队能够回答这个问题。

References: