Six Sigma at Academic Medical Hospital

...

The team as a whole has learned that to make it work smoothly the stakeholders must be advocates of the program and also that it wasn’t going to be an easy task to get this implemented with resistance from them. To increase the effectiveness as a team, the promotion of the methodologies when they meet and also to create a sense of importance to the tasks that were performed would help in allowing the methodologies to be implemented by the peers and as a whole increase the effectiveness. The advice that can be given out to other teams that were to embark on the Six Sigma journey would be to strategically identify the areas of improvement and create measurable goals with statistics that back the results as improvements – the major hurdle would be to get the stakeholders to accept the project implementation and also to promote an environment that enables advocating Six Sigma as a prime goal as to opposing it – coordination between the teams has to be spot-on to enable success. The limitation of a Six Sigma team is the lack of support from the top management or the stakeholders who are involved in the project – the collection of metrics and the use of Statistical methods has to be clearly understood, the lack of participation of the patients can be a setback and this goes a long way when defining the goals for the Six Sigma project. The involvement of multi-reporting employees makes it harder for management to follow a certain path to go about the process of advocating the program and also to be able to influence the staff, leadership would have to have a major role – this is limited here under multiple leadership.

Below is a Stakeholder and Resistance analysis which will be used further to analyze the cultivation of acceptance to the stakeholders and also to be able to convey the results of the pilot program to them effectively. Jane McCrea can communicate the success factors to the stakeholders by the following strategies that are given in the analysis as well as; 1. Creating process maps; 2. Creating and delivering 2-minute elevator speeches to the Sponsor and also the Champion of the project; 3. Status updates to the staff and also feedback analysis; 4. One-on-ones to the attending physicians.

Stakeholder and Resistance Analysis

Stakeholders

Strongly against

Moderately against

Neutral

Moderately supportive

Strongly supportive

Strategies to improve support

Dr. Elbridge

Yes

As Dr. Elbridge was a strong supporter of the Six Sigma methodology and was the Champion, he can be used to influence Dr. Hamilton through brief meetings or just letting him know the benefits.

Dr. Calhoun

No

Yes

Dr. Calhoun overlooked the faculty and the residents so he could be approached to influence the physicians which can have long-term benefits in the project, and also enable the national recognition he seeks for the ED.

Reports and status updates can be provided

Dr. Hamilton

No

Yes

Yes

Dr. Hamilton being the Sponsor was in the role that could influence the advocacy of Six Sigma being followed. He could be presented with Process flow improvements and also given elevator speeches that could provide insights to the project.

Dr. Elbridge’s influence could also be used to enable the support of Dr. Hamilton. Reports to Dr. Elbridge and Dr. Calhoun.

Jane McCrea

Yes/No

Jane, is in a mixed state as the Black belt in the Six Sigma project it is her role to create strategies that can enable advocacy of the project, her support exists and would not need another method. Reports to Dr. Elbridge

Dr. Wilson

No

Yes

As a Green Belt in the project, the support can be provided to influence attending physicians and peers by involving them in the benefits of the program and also by providing the results, interviewing others. Reports to other department Chairs.

Nancy Jenkins

Yes

Supports the Six Sigma project and advocates it as well, provide the status reports and metrics of improvements and other dashboards. Reports to AMH Chief Clinical Officer.

Foundations Team

No

Yes

Create an information session and also interview to advocate the program acceptance and support. Reports to AMH Chief Clinical Officer.

The unique feature about the attending physicians is that they were aware of the wait times for themselves and also the patients, they worked in rotational shifts as they had other duties – such as educational requisites and this would be a boon to them if the processes are streamlined and that the wait times are shortened for both the patients as well as themselves. A six sigma approach achieves both of these and it would be great to have their support in this venture as they are the integrated operational staff who are the key to the ED processes.

Physicians are generally weary of leaving their experienced paths and taking up changes in their processes, the programs previously taken up by the foundation team to make improvements in the quality had failed and also that Dr. Elbridge was trying for about 10 years without any significant progress – would have to be some of the points that possibly bring about resistance among the attending physicians – also the dual reporting structure makes it cumbersome to get the proper support out to the stakeholders. Dr. Calhoun’s support can be garnered in this aspect where his influence can bring about a change in the physicians attitude to accept the changes that are beneficial and to see that the project is finally working out in the right direction. Another, possible reason for the resistance factor would