Introduction
In my own opinion, a lot of things were being done the wrong way at Sigtek. However, it seems things nosedived since the organization was bought by Telwork. Though the six sigma Quality program was a brilliant idea, its very accomplishment was frustrated by a number of things which were done wrong. In this brief text, I come up with recommendations I would make concerning how things could have been done differently.
The recommendations
To begin with, the interference and hands-on approach that was adopted by Telwork once it acquired Sigtek was unfortunate given that it ended up rousing power plays that could effectively see Sigtek fold up especially after the appointment of Richard Patricof as the general manager of Telwork. To begin with, Patriocof is an embodiment of inefficiency as most of his energies were primarily directed at style essentially meaning that issues that needed to be resolved at the lower levels of the organization went unaddressed. If the Telwork had left Sigtek operate without interference, things could have looked up for the subsidiary.
Secondly, the Six Sigma program seems to be the only hope to redeem Sigtek in the face of the emerging competition. However, the program whose planning and execution was excellent ended up achieving nothing because of bureaucracy and lack of management concern for things happening at the lower organizational levels. For instance, the Cart issue and the metal plug receptacle took extremely long to be addressed. This essentially killed the morale of those attending the teaching/training sessions as they could not see the applicability and the practicability of the Six Sigma program if such simple things could not be solved on time. In my opinion, if things were addressed as they rose, i.e. if the existing level of bureaucracy was dealt with, the Six Sigma program could have proceeded without a hitch and Telwork would have benefited from a more efficient and profitable Sigtek.
Next, there is the issue of antagonism between the operations and the engineering departments. This was effectively limiting the organizations ability to operate efficiently and it was inevitably going to make the implementation of issues including the Six Sigma program more difficulty. In my own opinion, ensuring that the two separate departments complemented each other was the way to go. Next, the lack of management goodwill as far as the Six Sigma program is concerned was worrying. Smithers recounts of the presentation to management that started and ended with no questions asked or clarifications sought on any issue. In addition, this was essentially the first time the managers, senior organizational managers, were interacting with the program. This whole scenario gave Smithers the feeling that “nobody cares” or “nobody comprehends”. According to Griffin (2006), for any program especially the one that has the concept of kaizen or continuous improvement to succeed both in formulation and most importantly the implementation phase, the role of management cannot be underestimated. In my own opinion, the line managers show much enthusiasm towards the program than the senior management team. Things could have been better if senior management was more inclined to see the program to its conclusive end.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the failure to efficiently address emerging issues in a timely manner which was as a result of existing power plays as well as a high level of bureaucracy can be taken to be one of the main reasons for Sigtek failing to achieve its maximum potential in terms of increased competitiveness as well as profitability.
References
Griffin, R.W. (2006). Principles of Management. Cengage Learning
