by Thomas Pyzdek

Lean Financial Services

The Wharton School and Boston Consulting Group (BCG) have released a special report investigating the reasons why the financial services sector is lagging in their adoption of lean tools and practices. The study finds that the attitudes are changing, albeit slowly. Apparently lower costs, fewer errors, improved efficiency and reduced cycle times appeal to bankers. Who knew?

Lean’s manufacturing origins are probably part of the problem. Non-manufacturing organizations have a difficult time making the mental adjustment between manufacturing and services terminology. I recall many years ago teaching a class where I presented a control chart of a manufacturing process. The data showed the diameters of truss rods. This was a public seminar and I had a mix of students from manufacturing, health care, insurance, services and other industries. These students were truly baffled as to how they could make this work with their businesses. Sensing the reason, I though I’d try something. I wrote the first few rows of the data table that was used for the control chart, but I didn’t put a title on the table. Then I went around the room one-by-one and asked the students some questions about their businesses. For the health care student I wrote the title on the table as “Infections per 100 Surgeries.” For the insurance student “Claims Processed per Worker per Hour.” For the service department student “Service Calls Requiring a Follow Up Visit.” As I addressed each student’s particular application, I could visibly see the light come on.

This exercise caused me to be somewhat disappointed in analysis presented by the Wharton/BCG report’s authors. Deepak Goyal, a partner in BCG’s New York office, commented “Finance is just a different kind of factory. It is a processing factory, and there’s a lot of waste.”  Another comment was “Becoming lean involves eliminating the “seven deadly sins” of waste in a process — overproduction, waiting, poor transportation/logistics, over-processing, sub-optimal inventory control, rework, and unneeded movement.” Yeah, sure. But I doubt that people in the financial sector know precisely what these guys are talking about. I suspect that a few specific financial sector examples of each type of waste would go a long way towards improving understanding. I mean, is it supposed to be obvious that sub-optimal inventory control is a problem at a bank?

Still, the report is a wealth of valuable information for those seeking to expand the reach of Lean to non-traditional areas. Those of us who are professionals in this area can glean a lot of useful guidance from the report, because we already understand Lean and Lean Six Sigma. We can add a great deal of value by translating the report into terms that our clients and employers understand so they can see exactly how these important process excellence philosophies and technologies can be applied to the processes in the financial sector.

Then, perhaps, the lines at the teller window and the waiting times for loan approvals won’t be quite so long!

GD Star Rating
loading...
GD Star Rating
loading...


One Response to “Lean Financial Services”

  1. [...] the rest here: Lean Financial Services « Pyzdek Institute Share and [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in (click to log in or register) to post a comment.

Get Certified!

Be trained by Thomas Pyzdek

Black Belt

Green Belt

Learn More!

Resources for Six Sigma


Introduction to Six Sigma
Six Sigma Projects
Six Sigma Tools
Six Sigma Statistics
Six Sigma Videos (Requires QuickTime)
Leading Six Sigma
Healthcare Quality
Process Excellence Podcasts
Other Useful Links
Good books on Six Sigma and other topics

What is Six Sigma?

By Thomas Pyzdek, Author of The Six Sigma Handbook

For Motorola, the originator of Six Sigma, the answer to the question "Why Six Sigma?" was simple: survival. Motorola came to Six Sigma because it was being consistently beaten in the competitive marketplace by foreign firms that were able to produce higher quality products at a lower cost. When a Japanese firm took over a Motorola factory that manufactured Quasar television sets in the United States in the 1970s, they promptly set about making drastic changes in the way the factory operated. Under Japanese management, the factory was soon producing TV sets with 1/20th the number of defects they had produced under Motorola management. They did this using the same workforce, technology, and designs, making it clear that the problem was Motorola's management. Eventually, even Motorola's own executives had to admit "our quality stinks." Read More...