Archive for the ‘Leading Six Sigma’ Category

Free Webinar on Innovating With Lean Six Sigma

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

ArtworkCEOs report that their innovation efforts are hampered by unsupportive cultures, rigid organizational mindsets, and lack of processes and discipline. Lean Six Sigma addresses all of these issues. When done properly, Lean Six Sigma can be used to supercharge innovation. Find out more by attending this free webinar delivered by Thomas Pyzdek.

Click the link below to reserve your seat for this webinar.

Wednesday, January 18, 11:00AM EST. Click here to register.

Click here to view a recording of the webinar.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Innovating With Lean Six Sigma

Sunday, January 8th, 2012

In the past I have argued that Lean Six Sigma has its limits and that care should be taken when applying it to innovation. My recommendation was based on observations that organizations which tried to do this essentially quashed innovation by trying to measure innovation using the kind of metrics used for operational processes. I concluded that the attempt to measure creativity as if it were a process was a misapplication of Lean Six Sigma that practitioners should avoid.

InnovationTrue enough, but not the whole story. The fact is that when I look at what my clients do with Lean Six Sigma, and review projects from students, I can see that they are, in fact, innovating. In Phase I, when companies begin Lean Six Sigma, it is usually viewed as an initiative and the first efforts focus on creating a culture where change is possible, organizing an infrastructure for change, training a cadre of part- and full-time change agents, and pursuing projects chosen to move the organization towards its vision. This sets the stage for innovation. The real transformation here is in the way people in the organization think, specifically:

  • They are fact and data driven. Opinions are considered the source of hypotheses to be tested, not absolute truth. The change agents have the tools they need to rigorously test these hypotheses.
  • They are customer focused and they know how to identify the voice of the customer. This gives them insights into customers needs that go well beyond what customers explicitly say their needs are.
  • They think of organizations as processes as well as functions. They understand that functions exist to serve stakeholders and enable core processes.
  • They understand variation differently than their untrained counterparts. They know that some variation demands an immediate response, but other variation requires system changes. They know how to tell one type of variation from the other.
  • They think of results as stemming from systems rather than individuals.
  • They know that outcomes–both wanted and unwanted–are caused, and they know how to drill down to these causes. I.e., they understand that processes are transfer functions that transform inputs into outputs.
  • They understand the importance of focusing on the few critical to quality drivers, and how to identify them.
  • They know how to organize people for change.

By design the time spent as a full-time change agent is limited. Black Belts serve their terms and return to the organization in other roles.  As time goes by these Lean Six Sigma change agents begin to change the organization’s DNA. Phase II occurs as the culture change takes hold and the change agents, now in key leadership positions, see the Lean Six Sigma approach as the best way to lead the organization towards its vision. They see that they can create new and innovative ways to serve their customers’ latent needs based on the intimate knowledge of the customer and the insights gained using Lean Six Sigma on a smaller scale. They better understand the organization’s capabilities based on experiences learned during the deployment of the initiative. Lean Six Sigma moves far beyond discrete improvement projects and becomes the  framework for leading the organization as a whole towards its vision.

Lean Six Sigma also teaches leaders a new way to lead. Their involvement in defining the organization’s core processes and enabling functions, identifying process owners, finding opportunities for improvement linked to their strategies, defining the drivers of these opportunities, selecting relevant metrics for the drivers, and linking the metrics to activities throughout the organization (including but not limited to Lean Six Sigma projects,) gives them a new way to get things done.

ArtworkThe combination of a new way of thinking, intimate knowledge of the customer, a culture that embraces and expects change, and a powerful new way to lead, makes it possible for the leadership to bring together disparate parts of their organization all focused on a single purpose: wowing the customer. In short, innovation. This is not the aforementioned clumsy and ill-advised attempt to measure the unmeasurable or to “manage the innovation process,” it is an inspired expansion of the scope of Lean Six Sigma from a purely operational improvement tool to a purposeful search for innovative improvement opportunities. It is the application of the core principles of Lean Six Sigma to the  problem of creating a resilient organization that not only responds quickly to changing customer needs and competitive pressures, but also improves the human condition by creating products and services never before conceived.

In summary, Lean Six Sigma becomes the springboard for continuous innovation. It’s a natural extension of the idea of continuous improvement.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Gaming the Metrics

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012

One of the cornerstones of quality and Lean Six Sigma is data. We insist on it. Don’t tell us what you think the situation is, let the data do the talking. In god we trust, all others bring data. You get the idea.

Die imageAn unfortunate side effect of this emphasis is the proliferation of useless data. If the useless data weren’t used then collecting the data would merely be a waste of time. But if a person’s performance is being measured by this data, you can bet your last euro that the measurements will get a lot of attention, and it will drive a lot of behavior. And if the system doesn’t change, there’s still one way to make the measurements look better: cheat.

I often open my face-to-face training sessions with Dr. Deming’s Red Bead Experiment. It’s a great icebreaker and it introduces some important statistical ideas. The experiment is actually a game with very simple rules. “Willing Workers” are required to use a paddle with holes in it to sample beads from a container which has red and white beads in it. “We don’t want any red beads.” The workers are told. To drive the point home there are Quality Inspectors to check the samples for the unwanted red beads and to record the results, and Supervisors to use the results to “coach” and discipline the hapless Willing Workers. Before the game concludes there are always participants who, seeing a bunch of red beads on their paddle, quickly dump the sample back before the count can be made. Others deliberately pick out red beads and throw them back. Still others bring partially filled paddles to the Quality Inspectors. There are all manners of ways to try and beat the system. And this is just a fun game, played for no stakes at all. Imagine what people do when real consequences are on the line, such as pay and promotions.

The most serious games are probably paid in totalitarian countries where factory managers are measured and sometimes executed when the results are less than required by the authorities. According to the UK History Learning Site in Stalin’s Russia

Factories took to inflating their production figures and the products produced were frequently so poor that they could not be used even if the factory producing those goods appeared to be meeting its target. The punishment for failure was severe. 

In the book Eat the Rich author P.J. O’Rourke tells us that in the USSR

The trouble wasn’t that factory managers disobeyed orders. The trouble was that they obeyed them precisely. If a shoe factory was told to produce 1000 shoes, it produced 1000 baby shoes because they were the cheapest and easiest to make. If it was told to produce 1000 mens shoes, it made them all one size. If it was told to produce 1000 shoes in a variety for men, women and children, it produced 998 baby shoes, one pump and a wing tip. If it was told to produce 3000 pounds of shoes it produced one enormous pair of concrete sneakers.

Perhaps P.J. is exaggerating, but the point is still essentially valid: metrics can–and probably will–be gamed. In Lean Six Sigma there’s a common metric gaming activity which I call Denominator Improvement. One of the most popular metrics is defects per million opportunities, or DPMOs. The formula itself is quite simple: DPMO = 1,000,000 x Defects/Opportunities. If someone’s performance is being measured using DPMOs they can make the metric look better by reducing defects (the numerator,) or by increasing the number of opportunities (the denominator.) For example, we might be interested in the number of typing errors in this post. The DPMO metric might be 1,000,000 x Errors/Total Words. But if this number didn’t look good enough I might also use 1,000,000 x Errors/Total Letters or 1,000,000 x Errors/Total Characters, counting spaces and punctuation.

The solution to metrics gaming is to use metrics to guide improvement, not to measure the performance of people. Metrics should be limited to those numbers that quantify an important outcome (Y metrics,) or quantify an input that is critical to the quality of the outcome (a CTQ or X metric.) The reason for quantifying these things is to discover, validate, and use a transfer function — Y=f(x), a model of the cause-and-effect relationship — to guide improvement planning and activity. When metrics serve a useful purpose such as this the tendency to manipulate and game them is, if not eliminated, at least reduced.

GD Star Rating
loading...

U.S. Army Embarks on Improvement Using Lean Six Sigma

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

The United States Army’s Office of Business Transformation is pursuing a 3 year program to improve its operations, and Lean Six Sigma is a big part of it. According to its web page on Lean Six Sigma, the Army has an award-winning, world-class Lean Six Sigma program that it applies as a core capability in its business transformation. The Army is reviewing core business processes to better support its forces, to reduce waste and to improve quality. The ultimate goal is to free human and financial resources for more compelling operational needs. The Army believes the fusion of Lean and Six Sigma improvement methods is required because:

  • Lean cannot bring a process under statistical control
  • Six Sigma alone cannot dramatically improve process speed or reduce invested capital
  • Both enable the reduction of the cost of complexity

The Army’s deployment is one of the largest anywhere. The Army’s Lean Six Sigma program has trained more than 1,450 senior leaders. As of the date of the report on their web site, the Lean Six Sigma community has completed nearly 5,200 projects, and more than 1,900 projects are currently in progress. Completed projects have yielded significant financial and operational benefits at organizations across the Army.

The Army’s use of Lean Six Sigma is part of its effort to transform the Army through the establishment of the Institutional Army Transformation Commission in August 2011. The Secretary of the Army, John M. McHugh, established the Commission in a Memorandumon 15 August 2011. According to the Secretary, “reforming and restructuring the Institutional Army – the Generating Force – is critical to building the Army of the future and supporting the forces of today. It must be as nimble, agile and adaptive as our Operating Force – driven by ideas, innovation and a determination to bring the best services and equipment, training and leaders, medical care and support to our Soldiers, civilians, and their family members.”

I think its safe to say that creating an organization that is nimble, agile, adaptive, driven by ideas, innovation, and a determination to bring the best are all goals that any leader can embrace. I believe that the Army is correct in believing that Lean Six Sigma can help them achieve these goals.

 

GD Star Rating
loading...

Conference call on Lean Six Sigma in Government

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

Author’s Note: Neither I nor The Pyzdek Institute endorse any candidate for any office.

Americans deserve a government that is both limited and efficient. They deserve to have politicians that look for ways to save taxpayer money and get back to a balanced budget. One way to get there would be to apply Lean Six Sigma to every aspect of the federal government, which could save taxpayers over $500 billion a year. The Lean Six Sigma Group on LinkedIn will hold its first of many Lean Six Sigma networking calls. The first call is to focus on the first topic will be on “How Lean Six Sigma can be used to Reduce Government Waste and/or Value Creation by $500B.”

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich-Presidential Candidate

Guest Speakers:

  • Mr. Newt Gengrich, candidate for President of the United States.
  • Thomas Pyzdek, Author of The Six Sigma Handbook
  • Dr. Mikel Harry, co-author of Lean Six Sigma
  • Jim Bowie, author of Lean Acres
  • Vanessa Lovitt, Director of the Process Excellence Network
  • Joseph Paris, President of XONITEK

And others…

If you plan to attend please act quickly. There is a limit of 1000 persons on the call and the limit is being approached rapidly. If you work in the Six Sigma field, please join Newt for a conference call so he can listen and learn from you, get your feedback and ideas, and answer your questions – so together we can shrink and reform government to get back to a balanced budget.

Wednesday, August 17
8:15pm ET

RSVP for the call-in details

Click here to RSVP

GD Star Rating
loading...

Are Project Charters Important?

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

A student in my Lean Six Sigma Black Belt training course asked the following question:

Hi Tom,
In the lesson on “Choosing the Project – Carefully Assess Candidate Projects to Assure Succes”, slide # 21 – it states that the project charter has low relative important criteria, second to the last important criteria. Why is this so? This seems to contradict PMP’s recommendation that the project charter should be one of the most important items that must be completed before getting the project’s kick off. PMP suggests that each successful project needs a completed and signed off project charter. On this slide #21, are you saying that based on your experiences with the LSS organization, many of the LSS organizations put low priority on the project charter? Does this mean that many of the real life projects started without a completed and signed off project charter? If the answer to the above question is yes, please comment why.
Thanks, Mike

Here is my reply to Mike

These criteria were arrived at by me and some of my clients using a technique called AHP (which is covered in a later lesson.) We looked at a large number of actual projects, some which were successful and some which were not (a judgment made by me and Master Black Belts after consulting participants involved with the projects.) We brainstormed a list of criteria for success or failure, then performed pairwise comparisons and calculated the importance weights. It turned out that the quality of the project charter, while important, was less important to project success than the criteria above it. This might simply mean that the projects considered all had reasonably good charters so that this wasn’t a big factor in determining success. However, the fact that the project charter made the final list indicates that it’s a big deal. For different portfolios of projects it is likely that you would get different criteria and different weights. However, the criteria have been used by me and others to evaluate hundreds of projects in high-tech manufacturing, call centers, and aerospace. I think they’re pretty solid.
This does not contradict the PMP recommendation regarding process charters. Every item on the list is important and my clients (and The Pyzdek Insitute) require that all of the items must receive a non-zero score before any project is approved. Consider that there are literally hundreds of things that could be considered when evaluating a potential project; this set of 9 criteria is a very select group. The relative importance weights are used to score projects so you will have a rank-ordered list to help you choose which projects to pursue, as shown on slide 22 of the lesson. Note that I say “to help you choose.” In other words, the scores and rankings are just one input. Your judgment is also needed, and it may be that your leaders tell you to do a project despite its score.
Project scores
PS: Note that all of the projects on this list have a top score of 9 for their charters. As I recall, most of the projects we looked at when putting the criteria list together also had decent charters. This would account for the relatively low importance score for the project charter criterion. It’s not that it’s of low importance, it’s just that it’s not the best way of differentiating one project from another.
GD Star Rating
loading...

The Dirty Dozen Quality Challenges

Monday, April 18th, 2011

Lean, Six Sigma and Quality provide a set of tools and a framework for achieving excellence in any process.Quality professionals are able to help organizations determine if customer requirements are properly defined and if the organzation is meeting those requirements. Lean practitioners have a set of skills that can be used to eliminate waste in the way things are done. Six Sigma can drive variation and errors out of processes. For the sake of discussion, let’s call these the “Process Excellence Professions.” By applying these methodologies in the manufacturing arena over the past five decades the Lean, Six Sigma and Quality professions have helped increase productivity many fold, while driving errors and quality problems to levels so low that society has begun to believe that it is possible to produce risk-free products, an illusion that previous generations could not even conceive. These days when I tour manufacturing facilities around the world I find that they are able to consistently produce high quality at a very low cost per unit with very little waste.

Question: why doesn’t everyone use these tools?

Frankly, it is depressing when I leave the factory and re-enter the real world. There I encounter poor service, rampant inefficiency, horrible quality, and an attitude that this state of affairs is the best anyone can do. I believe that those working in the Process Excellence professions need to do a little soul-searching to discover the reasons why so many non-manufacturing organizations continue to ignore what we know to be valuable and highly effective frameworks, tools, and techniques for reducing variation and driving out waste and errors. In no particular order, here’s a list of things that I think contribute to the problem:

  1. The priesthood of job titles. Engineers belong in factories and laboratories. Black Belts and Green Belts belong in the dojo. Service, transactional and other businesses are put off by the names we give to people who apply Process Excellence principles. While I’m loathe to advocate adding more job titles, the existing choices may never feel quite right to people working in hospitals and banks.
  2. The jargon. DMAIC, CQTs, or SIPOCs anyone? We could do with a bit less of this alphabet soup.
  3. The time it takes to become trained. My online Lean Six Sigma Black Belt course takes 180 hours to complete. Quite a commitment for a working professional. I don’t advocate cutting content to satisfy an arbitrary time requirement, but I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that we are asking a lot.
  4. The time it takes to become proficient. Once training is complete, it takes another year or so for the practitioner to become reasonably comfortable actually using the new knowledge. Probably unavoidable, but another barrier to be sure.
  5. Charlatans and hacks. The Process Excellence profession is new and poorly defined, leaving us wide open for wannabes who are looking for the quick buck. This situation is slowly being remedied, but there are currently plenty of pretenders who need to be drummed out of the field.
  6. The lack of a standardized body of knowledge. While most experienced practitioners agree on a “starter set” of subjects that need to be covered, there is still plenty of disagreement around the edges. As evidence I point to the fact that some Six Sigma Black Belt training programs are two weeks duration, while others are six weeks. What’s up with that?
  7. The lack of a central accreditation body. Logically, ASQ could have served this purpose at one time. However, they chose the path of being a training provider instead, making them competitors to all other training providers. It’s tough to be objective when you are evaluating your competitor. The new International Association for Six Sigma Accreditation (IASSC) and their partner PEOPLECERT have stepped up to provide this service. However, the program is new and the number of accredited training organizations, curriculum providers, and trainers is still extremely limited. I’m proud to say that The Pyzdek Institute is IASSC accredited and hope others will join us.
  8. The historical origins of Process Excellence. The historical roots of our profession are in agriculture and manufacturing. The language we use reflects these origins. This will continue to impede adoption by services, healthcare, and transactional industries. By the way, it’s no accident that agriculture and manufacturing are among the most efficient and advanced sectors of the economy.
  9. The math. Math provides us with rigorous tools to quantify goals and progress, calculate costs and benefits, establish cause and effect, model our solutions before deploying them, and to do many other things. Process Excellence without math is inconceivable. Still, many fear mathematics and are put off by it. This is especially so in America, where public education does a poor job of preparing people for the study of math at the college level. We need to do more to help break down this barrier and open the door for our colleagues in non-manufacturing sectors.
  10. The mixture of soft skills and technical skills. Process Excellence requires a special mix of skills. The technical skills needed are obvious: math, statistics, etc.. But we also need to understand people skills to deal effectively with customers, team members, leaders, and stakeholders. Project management skills are a must. The ability to do preliminary financial analysis is also a requirement. It’s challenging to find someone able to deal with all of these different subjects.
  11. The arrogance of practitioners. While it’s okay to hold your head high when you earn your Professional Excellence credential, you must be careful not to flaunt your new status. Such attitudes are a turn-off to others.
  12. The added bureaucracy. Lean, Six Sigma, and Quality efforts require central organizations to get started. Ideally as Process Excellence gets into the organization’s DNA, the attitudes and knowledge of others in the rest of the organization will lead to the new bureaucracies shrinking in size over time. However, sometimes bureaucracies can take on a life of their own, sapping resources that would be better used elsewhere. Organizations that haven’t yet embarked on their own Process Excellence journey may well be wary of beginning if they hear one of these horror stories.

I’m sure that I’ve only scratched the surface here and I welcome your ideas. l’d also like to see suggestions for overcoming these obstacles to more widespread adoption of Process Excellence. Let’s see if we can help ourselves by helping non-manufacturing organizations learn to improve themselves more quickly.

GD Star Rating
loading...

How to Revive a Sagging Lean Six Sigma Program

Monday, February 28th, 2011

February 28, 2011. ASQ Lean Six Sigma Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.

Conference keynote speaker D. Lynn Kelley, Vice President of Operational Excellence at Textron, Inc. told the audience of Lean Six Sigma professionals that the key to keeping a process excellence effort exciting is to be sure that it is linked to the leadership’s goals for the organization. I heartily agree. In fact, all Lean Six Sigma activities, especially projects, should begin with the goals of the organization’s leaders. Too often organizations start Six Sigma by creating a dedicated Six Sigma organizational entity which, over time, becomes separated from the rest of the organization and begins to exist for its own sake. This is actually a failure of leadership. Six Sigma is worth pursuing only if it helps the leadership achieve its goals. It brings to bear a special and highly useful skill set for improving business processes by driving out variation and eliminating errors. When leaders know what they want to accomplish but the path to achieving it is unclear, Six Sigma can help in a way that no other approach can. A corollary is that the change agents working in the Six Sigma organization must know what the leaders want to accomplish and plan their activities to help them achieve it.

Kelley made it clear that the goals may not always involve hard dollar savings. Indeed, savings and revenue improvement are the end result of a transfer function that involves identifying the root causes of these desirable outcomes and using this knowledge to create new and better ways of doing things. The requirement that everything show a clear dollar impact can be abused. The CEO is interested in balancing the demands of the organization’s major stakeholders: customers, investors, and employees. An obsession with one stakeholder group to the detriment of the others will damage the organization and must be avoided. Again, Six Sigma can play an important role in helping the CEO achieve the goal of balance.

If your Six Sigma ship is on the rocks, it’s probably time to go back to your leadership and reaffirm the idea that you are there to help them. Get the voice of this crucial “customer” and reintegrate it into your Six Sigma activities. Failure to do so may result in the Six Sigma ship becoming irrelevant in your organization and sinking completely.

GD Star Rating
loading...

AT&T Finds New Ways to Annoy Its Customers

Monday, June 7th, 2010


AT&T System Upgrade

New iPhone Customers Got Another AT&T Surprise


As an AT&T and iPhone user I am often surprised at the poor level of service the former “Phone Company” monopoly provides to its customers. For example, although I can see the AT&T cell tower from my Tucson home, I frequently experience failed calls, dropped calls, choppy reception and other poor quality phone service. At my vacation home in Pinetop, Arizona there is no 3G service and I am charged the same data rates as I’d incur if I were traveling overseas. I recently “solved” these problems by purchasing an AT&T MicroCell tower, an expensive device that AT&T sells to its hapless customers to improve call quality. At least I get decent call quality at home (of course, I still burn my plan minutes even though there is no usage of AT&T’s cell network.)

Today, June 7, AT&T went to new lengths to annoy existing and potential customers. A few hours ago Apple announced its new iPhone 4.0. My grown son has been wanting an iPhone for quite some time and I had the thought that I could add him to my plan and save a few bucks. I also wanted to know if I could grandfather him in on my unlimited data plan. AT&T announced a few days ago that they were discontinuing the unlimited data plan and charging new customers for data usage. Of course, I learned that I couldn’t grandfather my son in. However, I thought there might be some option that could save us a few dollars. After listening to the agent on the phone for a while I became confused by all of the options and decided to do some research online. Alas, all I could see at the AT&T site was the message “Due to a system upgrade the site is temporarily unavailable…” In other words, on the day that Apple upgrades the iPhone, which is used by more AT&T customers than any other phone, AT&T decides to upgrade their wireless site in the middle of the day.

Apparently “The Phone Company” has yet to understand that they now have competition. Hopefully Apple will seriously consider allowing some of that competition to carry their phone. Until then I’ll be looking at the silver lining: my AT&T customer experience will certainly continue to provide fodder for this blog!

GD Star Rating
loading...

Bailed Out Automakers Produce Worst Quality On The Road

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Forbes.com reports that six of the seven worst cars on the road are produced by either GM or Chrysler Corporation, the two auto companies which received billions of dollars in government bailout funds. Sadly, the seventh car on the list is also American made, a Ford product.

GM has experienced a surge in sales in recent months. Unfortunately just because GM’s cars are selling well now doesn’t mean they’re the best bet for durability or value — yet. If quality isn’t improved, it is not likely that the improved sales can be sustained. The public may be attracted to low price for a while, especially during a prolonged recession. But history shows that premium quality creates customer loyalty in the long run. For example, despite the headlines regarding Toyota’s recent quality problems, their sales continue to be impressive, both among existing as well as new customers. The message is that, in the long run, quality pays.

GD Star Rating
loading...