Archive for the ‘Six Sigma Tools’ Category

Six Sigma Project Presentations in a Nutshell

Saturday, August 14th, 2010

I’ve reviewed thousands of improvement projects. I’ve lost count of how many project presentations I’ve attended, either for certification purposes or for presentations to leaders. I’ve come to the conclusion that most Green Belts and Black Belts simultaneously present too much information, and not enough information. If I may speak to Green Belts and Black Belts on behalf of leaders and Master Black Belts everywhere, here’s what I’d like to say. What we’re asking is actually very simple, namely how did you apply the Six Sigma process to pursue a real opportunity? In other words, for your project just walk us through the L1 Six Sigma process shown in the figure, and do so in 45 minutes or less. I actually don’t even care if you use a PowerPoint template, or even if you have any slides whatever. I just want to hear a great Six Sigma success story.

Six Sigma L1 Map

GD Star Rating
loading...

Lean Six Sigma Improvement and Work Design

Monday, June 14th, 2010

This article is an excerpt from a lesson in Pyzdek Institute Lean Six Sigma Black Belt training. Future posts will continue the topic.

In previous lessons you learned how to change a traditional batch-and-queue value stream into a lean value stream. Now we will discuss the design of the actual work that will take place within the processes of the value stream. By going a level deeper we will be able to improve the flow of work within the different processes in the value stream. Specifically, you will learn how to design continuous flow work cells. While the discussion here focuses mainly on manufacturing work cells, the lean principles described apply to any work, including that done in administrative, transaction, or services such as healthcare, retail, and so on.

Selecting Subprojects

The first step is to identify subprojects within the value stream. Subprojects, sometimes called project “loops,” are determined by looking at the future state value stream map and choosing groups of related processes in the value stream for improvement analysis. Each subproject will require a different team with its own set of knowledge, skills, and abilities. However, it is desirable to have at least one member of the Lean Six Sigma team who participates on all of the subproject teams. Figure 1 shows a future state value stream maps with subprojects identified.

Figure 1-Subproject “Loops”

Subproject Loops

Once subprojects are identified, the Lean Six Sigma team must decide which to pursue first, second, and so on. As a general rule it is a good idea to begin at the customer end of the value stream and work backwards. This provides the customer with improved service that they can see and feel quickly. Another criterion is that the pacemaker process should be improved early, since it sets the pace for the rest of the value stream. The “Inside-Out Rule” should be observed: get your own house in order before extending your improvement efforts to include the value streams of outside customers and suppliers. Of course, your decision regarding the starting point should also take into account the likelihood that the subproject will have a big impact on the business and its customers.

Don’t think of the future state value stream map as untouchable. If, as you go through the exercise of selecting and prioritizing subprojects, you see an obvious improvement that’s not on the map, revise the map. Remember, the goal is to improve as much and as quickly as possible.

Once the subprojects have been identified and prioritized, treat each of them as you would any project. You may want to review the modules covering project management in the Define phase at this time. For each project find a sponsor (the value stream owner is a good candidate,)  write a charter, select a team, develop a schedule, identify stakeholders, etc..  By now these things will be second nature to you.

Elements of Work

Figure 2 shows the relationship between value streams, processes, operations, workplaces and procedures in the creation of value. The relationship is hierarchical. To implement Lean all levels of the hierarchy are considered. In previous lessons we discussed ways to change value streams by replacing batch-and-queue push scheduling systems with lean value streams where work is scheduled to maximize flow. Several other lessons focus on ways to improve processes, the next level of the hierarchy. For example, by using process maps to see how work flows through processes or by identifying non-value-added work. In designing work cells we will go deeper than the process level and look at the design of operations, including the layout of workplaces and the standard procedures followed to perform the work in each operation. Such operations are known as standard operations, because the way work is performed follows strict standard procedures.

Figure 2-Value Creation  Hierarchy



Value Creation Hierarchy

Value Creation Hierarchy



Processes are distinct sets of operations nested within a value stream. Process improvement has been the topic of numerous lessons in this course and it requires knowledge of the root causes creating process problems. In the context of designing continuous flow work cells in Lean Six Sigma, we focus primarily on the things in a process that inhibit flow, such as

  • Non-value added process steps on the opportunity map
  • The distance people, materials, or WIP travel between process steps (from the spaghetti chart)
  • Changeover, setup and adjustment time (discussed below)
  • Identify the root causes that are creating quality issues that are responsible for scrap, rework, or problems downstream (discussed in later modules)

In Lean Six Sigma we design work cells that improve the process as well as the specific operations within a cell. We get into “nitty-gritty” details of the work itself, considering how materials are handled and moved, fixtures, workplace layout, movement of various workers, etc. The transfer of work elements  (small units of work) between workers is carefully considered. “Work” is the sum of all of the work elements required to create one complete unit through the entire value stream.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Creating Customer Value or should I say Removing Non Value

Monday, April 12th, 2010

I have seen many companies trying so hard to get their employees to work harder creating more value for their customers. Trying constantly to keep a competitive edge over the competition. And yet when they really look around their employees are working already so hard. In fact, I’d say, people are busy 99% of the time trying to do a good job. So how does a company today meet this challenge, it is in the things the people do. The process! It is not the “people” that creates the value, but the activity (process) they do that creates it. You can actually see this but looking at the “things” (paper or product) in the process evolving into customer needs. If you focus on the “things” in the process and NOT the people you will see that those “things sit there not doing a thing 99% of the time. So to increase value to your customers you need to take the time wasted by the things in the process  just sitting doing nothing and remove it.

How do you do that? Simple, buy looking at the entire process. Look at things people are working on. If you see things that no one is working on then you can bet there is no value being added. Those steps/activities should be eliminated thus removing wasted time from the process. This concept is applied using what is called a Value Added Flow Analysis and I am going to quickly give you the “How To” perform one.

Value Added Flow Analysis

  1. Capture all the steps in the entire activity/process from beginning to end.
    1. To do this you follow one of those “things” (paper or product) from the receiving dock to the customers hands.
    2. Record EVERTHING that happens and how long it takes. I mean everything! Including, for example, the “step” of the thing (order) sitting is a briefcase or notebook as it is transported back to the office to be entered into your system. Or the “step” of the thing (your lunch order at a restaurant) sitting on the note pad as it travels to the kitchen. EVERYTHING! This list will be long both in time and steps.
  2. Next you will take this list and look at each of those step and determine if it is value added or not. So how do you  determine if it is value added? Value added steps can be identified by answering three questions about each step. All three questions have to be answered YES! If any are answered no then they are “non value added steps” and need to be put on the list to be elimination or improvement. Here are the three questions:
  1. Does the thing in the process change? If the “thing” is paper was some information recorded on it? If the “thing” is a product was something added to it?
  2. Does the customer care about the change? In other word are they willing to pay for the change that happened to the thing in the process.
  3. Was it done right the first time? Remember that you, as a customer, do not what to pay for mistake or redo’s and you surely do not want to wait for the error to be corrected. This is of no value to you.
  1. Once you have identified all the value added step then you need to eliminate or significantly improve all of the others. In a simple world you would just eliminate all of the non-value added steps. But our world that is not so easy to do, but I do feel you can eliminate about 75% of them.

Non Value Added Step Eliminating:

How can I be so sure that you can eliminate 75% of these steps; experience. Over the years I find over and over again that you can eliminate about 75% of the non value added steps. Look at one of your processes. When you first developed this “process” it was done a certain way. If lucky that way was written down as a procedure. But as time changed so have customer needs and to meet those needs you have adjusted your process. Over time with all the “adjustments” you now have a process that has several steps that are not needed any more to meet old needs that are no longer there. Another example maybe that the “process” has been handed down from employee to employee (no documentation) and each has done it slightly different. So in time the process has shifted from a originally good one to one that is different during which time the customer needs have changed as well. In either case steps have been left that create no value for your customer and need to be eliminated.

Non Value Added Step Improvement:

OK not everything can be eliminated. Why? Because many time we have more than one customer set of values and we have to prioritize, not eliminate, what we are doing. Be careful you are not micro managing something for you own interest and NOT your customers. A good example of a non value added step that can not be eliminated is Taxes. The “Paying Customer” does not care whether you pay them or not. But to stay in business you have to. Some look at the IRS as another customer (although not a paying one). So in these cases you have to look at ways of completing those steps as quickly and correctly as possible.

Well there you have it. How to create value without something new, but by eliminating waste. That is of value to the customer in that it reduces cost without reducing quality and they receive it sooner than expected. If you like this article I have written several others on my blog http://www.sixsigmatrainingconsulting.com/knowledgebase/ . As always, if you have any questions feel free to contact me.

Bersbach Consulting
Peter Bersbach
Six Sigma Master Black Belt
http://sixsigmatrainingconsulting.com
peter@bersbach.com
1.520.829.0090

GD Star Rating
loading...

The Seven Types of Waste a Summary

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

Bersbach Consulting LLC provides Six Sigma training coaching and support across Arizona, including the Tucson, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Glendale areas. At this time we would like to thank our friends and clients for their support. If you have landed here looking for our Six Sigma training, coaching or support services in Tucson, then please follow this Six Sigma Training link.

You may have seen a couple of posts I have done on the seven types of waste. I have completed seven articles on all seven types of waste you might find in your organization. Below is a listing and a short description for each of the seven types of waste plus a link to the full article. I believe if you read these articles you will have a new way of looking at your business.


The Seven Types of Waste:


Correction – Corrections are and time you redo, rewrite, rework, repair, or scrap something. This can be as simple as rewriting a grocery list. Say you have a grocery list but you want to rearrange the items on it in the order you will encounter them in the store. Even though it will speed things for you shopping it had to be redone instead of thinking of making the list ordered in the first place. Redoing the list did not add any value to you; it took longer to write it a second time instead of doing it right the first time.


Overproduction – Overproduction is when you make too much of something or you perform too much of a service for some one. Have you ever held a meeting and made copies for that meeting? Most people make a few extra, do you? That is overproduction they will end up in the trash. Or have you every as a question about something in a store and the salesman goes on an on answering your question when all you wanted was the simple answer? That salesman was overproducing


Movement of material or information – This type of waste is when you take any material for information and have to move it from one place to another. You may ship it or carry it your self but that movement does not create any value for the customer in fact it is lost time because it delays your product or service from getting to your customer


Motion of employees – This type of waste is when you or an operator has get up and walk or travel to get something to do their job.  Just like movement of materials and information, motion of the operator does not create value. In fact the “thing” in the process is not changing at all


Waiting – This type of waste is when you, other employees, customer, material, or equipment sits idle waiting. Think about all the waiting rooms there are. As a customer do you want to wait? No but we sometime have come to expect the wait. I have been to doctor’s office where the waiting room is empty or full did not matter but in some I was seen on time and other I have waited over an hour.


Inventory or other resources - This type of waste is not just supplies and materials on shelves but also any recourse your company has that is not being utilized. We normal see inventory as parts and supplies sitting on a shelf like boxes of cereal in the grocery store. But here inventory also include equipment that is standing idle or in storage and employees that have skill that are not being used to their fullest.


Processes - This type of waste is when you are doing more than required by the customer. This is a hard one to understand because sometimes doing more for free has a WOW factor for your customers. That is why it is important to know what is of value and what is not. You see sometime you do sometime more that you think the customer wants and they do not care. That is when it becomes a waste.

If your business is located anywhere in the World including the US, Tucson, Oro Valley , Oracle, Phoenix, Glendale, and Scottsdale, Marana, Green Valley Arizona or beyond and you would like to learn more about our Six Sigma training, coaching and support services please call  Bersbach Consulting LLC at 1-520-829-0090  Now!

GD Star Rating
loading...

American Kaizen

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

Kaizen means “improvement” in Japanese. In Japan businesses view Kaizen as a way to engage everyone in improvement without spending much money. Improvements are usually small, and overall improvement is gradual. Americans have little patience for such an approach. This podcast describes the American version of Japan’s successful approach to improving products and processes.

GD Star Rating
loading...

The Roadmap to a Successful Six Sigma Project

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

There are a lot of reasons that Six Sigma projects fail but they do not have to IF you can stick to the roadmap. I have done lots of projects most very successful but some have failed. In every case we stepped off of the tried and true path to success, the DMAIC roadmap. As simple and easy as these five steps seem to be, you will many times find them difficult to complete. But if that is happening, my advice to you is to “stay on the path”. Don’t skip a single step. If you stay on the path, you will find success.

DMAIC The five step process

So what are the five steps of this DMAIC roadmap? They are Define the issue, Measure the current state, Analyze and identify opportunities, Improve by implementing the best opportunities, and Control the new process to maintain the gains. You start every project at Define working your way through each step until you have put in place Controls to maintain your gains. What many of us do without thinking is we see a problem (Define)and go solve (improve) it. Most of the times you will find that within a year or maybe even a month or week the problem is back. What went wrong? We missed the other steps of the DMAIC roadmap. So let me spend some time talking about each step.

D – Define

The objective of Define is to define the issue (problem) and the real NEED to improve it. I call this need “the burning platform”. It can not be a nice thing to do, it has to be something that will have an impact on the bottom line of the company.

The second part of the define objective is to get alignment and commitment to solve this issue from the project sponsor and the project team. It also includes the team member’s supervision. We need them committed so they will not pull the team member for priorities lower than this project.

M – Measure

The objective of Measure is to go as a team, to where this process is physically and factually understand the existing process. This means collect facts and data not opinions. Everyone has an opinion but few have the facts to back up the opinion. I am not discounting opinions because most folks down in the trenches (and that is where you have to go) are the experts and have excellent idea of what is happening. The thing they lack is the data to prove it. So we listen to them carefully and then collect the data to prove what is happening. Note I said happening, that is not always what the expert says. But with the facts and data we can now go back to the expert and see if they now agree with what we found. Usually they do and are surprised by the findings.

The second part of the Measure objective is to then compile that data you have collected into a characterization of the current state of the process (the baseline for your project). This will show how bad things are or are not. Most of the time things will be worse than they first thought. In some cases, you may find that things are not bad at all. Then you need to explain your results to the sponsor and if the sponsor agrees close the project. You see sometimes even sponsors opinion of what is wrong is not backed by facts and data. So when you collect them it becomes obvious that this was not an issue.

A – Analyze

The objective of Analyze is to take the current state data and analyze it to determine the root causes of the issue. These root causes become opportunities to improve. Measure data shows you the “surface effects” or “pain” the company feels but not usually the deeper root of the issue. Because of that, you will usually find that you need to collect more data related to the measure data that validates the teams opinion of what is causing the current state issue to exist. So here in Analyze we have to take a “Deep Dive” into areas that measure pointed out as really needing improvement.

I – Improve

The objective of Improve is to develop and implement the best plan for improvement of the opportunities (root causes) identified in the Analyze step. There are two key phrases in this objective. “Develop the best plan” and “implement the best plan”. Develop takes some brainstorming and then some experimenting to validate that what you came up with would work. Second in develop is a plan. In the plan you will need several options so that when the time comes for getting an OK to implement it is not one or done (no action taken). Give the sponsor options to choose from but pick your best set and pitch it to them with a why it is best (remember facts and data).

The second key phrase is “implement the best plan. Whatever is picked, you need to create a detailed implementation plan. Create a time line and stick to it.

C – Control

Note: this is the most forgotten step. The objective of Control is to develop and implement the best controls to maintain the gains that the new process is producing. With anything new, things never work perfect. When things go wrong, as they will, you need a plan/ controls that will guide everyone as to what to do. If you do not do this when things go wrong, those involved will revert back to what they know and have done for years. A control plan can be as simple as a log of what happened, or as complex as a statistical control chart. What ever it is it needs to help the people working the new process continue to follow it.

There is a second part to control that has nothing to do with control but has everything to do with recognition. People on and off the team have worked very hard during the project to solve the issue and to keep things going while the team has worked to solve the issue. There needs to be a celebration and rewards for everyone involved to celebrate the success and their contribution to the solution. In today’s business world, we are faster to tell folks what is wrong than what is right so make sure you celebrate your success.

This is just a quick look at the DMAIC process and has not even address questions that should be answered in each step. My plan is to write five more articles each one addressing one of the steps in the DMAIC process in more detail. If you don’t see them at this blog, you will find them at the Six Sigma Knowledge Center.

Peter Bersbach
Six Sigma Master Black Belt
Bersbach Consulting LLC
(520) 829-0090

GD Star Rating
loading...

Jumping to Statistical Conclusions

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

Have you attributed your results to the right base data?

It may come as a surprise that the biggest challenge facing black belts and master black belts is usually not in selecting the best statistical technique for analyzing a particular data set. Most statistical techniques work fairly well even if the underlying assumptions are not precisely correct. If a black belt supplements the numerical analysis with graphical evaluation, the chance of making grossly erroneous decisions is negligible.

A mistake that is far more serious–but far more common–is comparing the results of a study to the wrong base data. These “apples to oranges” comparisons often lead to poor decisions and, worse still, to inaccurate beliefs that can derail faith in the Six Sigma approach itself. A recent incident with a client brought this point home for me.

The situation involved a project in the sales organization of a software company. The company had several sales teams and wanted to know if a new approach to closing the sale would improve the rate of closing sales. The company didn’t have a Six Sigma program, and the project was planned and carried out without black belts. The results were presented to management in a classic form: a bar chart (see Figure 1). The team had declared victory, and management–convinced by the “data”–prepared to revamp the sales training to incorporate the new approach companywide. All of the leaders looked forward to the bottom-line improvement they’d see from a 29-percent improvement in the sales closing rate.

Figure 1: Sales Closing Rate Improved by New Approach

All of the leaders, that is, except Lorraine. She’d received green belt training from her previous employer, and she’d seen enough black belt presentations to know that the analysis of the sales team was seriously flawed. It was undeniable that the project team’s sales close rate was 2.53 percent higher than the sales close rate for the rest of the sales department during the 16 weeks of the test, and, yes, the 2.53 percent did represent a 29-percent improvement over the 8.83-percent rate for the rest of the team. Despite these “facts” and the air of scientific objectivity surrounding the analysis, Lorraine had many unanswered questions. She asked management to delay any decision until she could explore these questions with a Six Sigma consultant. That’s where things stood when I entered the picture.

Table 1: Old vs.
New Closing Rates

Lorraine viewed the analysis as important because it would demonstrate that the Six Sigma approach could be applied in this service company, something that skeptical managers didn’t believe. In a meeting with the sales team leader, I was presented with the data shown in Table 1. As often happens, this summary data was all that was available; for a variety of reasons (but chiefly due to a time constraint) the number of sales calls used to compute these rates could not be obtained.

If you are a black belt or master black belt, or just statistically inclined, please take a couple of minutes before reading the remainder of this column to think about the data and jot down how you’d proceed from here.

When dealing with the data in Table 1, it’s tempting to apply a statistical technique such as a paired t-test to it. Using Microsoft Excel, it’s a simple matter to compute the t-statistic, which is 4.55, a highly significant result. Statistical purists would ask if the data are approximately normal and an endless variety of other technical questions about the data. I would argue, however, that all of this is premature and, ultimately, beside the point. The first order of business is to determine if we are comparing apples to apples.

Table 2: Apples-to-Apples Comparison

Further discussion revealed that the company had not two but nine sales teams, all of the same size. A further complication was that the teams sold different products. More probing uncovered the fact that four of the eight other teams sold a product mix similar to that of the team using the new closing method. At this point it appeared that, to make an apples-to-apples comparison, you would assess the results of these five teams for the 16-week project. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2.

Table 3: Data Groups

Further analysis using nonparametric methods indicated that there are three distinct groups in these data (see Table 3).

Table 3 presents a decidedly different picture than was originally given to management. The new closing method now appears to be no better than normal. Still, there are bright spots. Assuming that teams 5 and 8 aren’t oranges being compared to apples, potential gains should be possible from discovering why team 5 performs under the norm, and why team 8 outperforms the norm. More information might also be obtained by plotting the 16 weeks over time to identify trends and other patterns. Using the Six Sigma approach, the information can be converted to knowledge, the knowledge to action, and the action to an improved bottom line. It’s more work than the old standby, the bar chart, but it’s worth it.

The complete data file used in this article is posted at www.pyzdek.com/2000-05.xls . The challenge is to analyze the data in a number of different ways to determine how the different analyses would affect management decisions. Send your results to me for inclusion in a future column.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Design of Experiments and Baseball

Monday, August 31st, 2009

A Black Belt steps up to the plate with Six Sigma confidence.

Bill had a problem. His company’s baseball team wasn’t doing that well, and he was part of the reason. Bill was in a long slump. Frankly, he stunk at the plate.

But Bill is a Six Sigma Black Belt. He decided to approach his batting problem just like he would approach any process problem at work–by conducting a designed experiment. First, Bill determined which factors are important. He wrote up a lengthy list and then winnowed it down to four experimental variables (see Table 1).

Table 1: Experimental Variables for Hitting

Bill decided to spend a few evenings and weekends on the practice field swinging at 100 pitches for each of the 16 combinations of the four variables needed to conduct a full-factorial experiment. The field was equipped with a pitching machine that could be programmed to throw pitches at either 60 mph or 80 mph. Bill decided to count any ball that went past the infield in fair territory as a hit. Over a two-week period Bill was able to complete the experiment, producing the results shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Bill’s Batting Experiment

The analysis indicates that factors B and D, and especially the C-D interaction, make big differences in Bill’s performance. Factors A and C do not have a significant effect on Bill’s batting average. The analysis in Table 3 shows the details.

Table 3: Significant Factor Effects

The 95-percent confidence interval for C (position in the batter’s box) includes zero, meaning that C is not statistically significant as a main effect. (C is included because the significant C-D interaction term requires it for statistical reasons.) However, the other factors in the table–B (choke on the bat) and D (speed of the pitch)–are statistically significant. The most important factor is the C-D interaction, which has an impressive effect of more than 9 percent. The coefficient estimate tells us what happens to Bill’s batting average as we go from one level of the variable to another. For example, when B is at the high level (choke up on the bat two inches), Bill’s batting average improves by about four percentage points.

The analysis indicates that when Bill is facing a pitcher with real heat (80 mph isn’t too bad for an amateur pitcher), he can improve his batting average from 8 percent to 28.75 percent by standing near the back of the batter’s box (see Table 4). Conversely, when Bill is up against a 60-mph hurler, he’s better off in the front of the batter’s box (38.75 percent in front hits vs. 15 percent in back). Combining all of these results, Bill’s strategy is to always choke up on the bat and position himself in the batter’s box depending on the expected speed of the pitch.

Table 4: Bill’s Results

Bill may not be ready for the majors with this strategy, but he’s hitting a lot better than the .206 (20.6%) he’d been getting without a strategy. In the meantime, Bill, work on hitting that fast ball!

GD Star Rating
loading...

Using the Theory of Constraints to Choose Six Sigma Projects

Monday, July 13th, 2009

The theory of constraints helps pick winning projects.

If you choose the wrong projects it’s possible to make big “improvements” in quality and productivity that have absolutely no impact on net profit. One approach uses the theory of constraints (TOC) to determine which project(s) to pursue.

Every organization has constraints, which come in many forms. When a production or service process has a resource constraint, the sequence of improvement projects should be identified using very specific rules. According to Eliyahu M. Goldratt, the rules are:

Figure 1: A Simple Process with a Constraint

1. Identify the system’s constraint(s). See if you can identify the system constraint in Figure 1. The answer is printed at the end of this column. This fictitious company produces only two products, P and Q. The market demand for P is 100 units per week, and P sells for $90 per unit. The market demand for Q is 50 units per week, and Q sells for $100 per unit. Assume that A, B, C and D are workers who have different, noninterchangeable skills and that each worker is available for only 2,400 minutes per week (8 hours per day, 5 days per week). For simplicity, assume there’s no variation, waste or similar problems in the process.

2. Decide how to exploit the system’s constraint(s). Look for Six Sigma projects that minimize waste of the constraints. For example, if the constraint is the market demand, we should look for Six Sigma projects that provide 100-percent on-time delivery. If the constraint is a machine, focus on reducing setup time, eliminating scrap and keeping the machine running as much as possible.

3. Subordinate everything else to the decision made in step 2. Choose Six Sigma projects that maximize throughput of the constraint. First choose projects to eliminate waste from downstream processes; once the constraint has been utilized to create something, we don’t want to lose it to some blunder downstream. Then choose projects to ensure that the constraint is always supplied with adequate nondefective resources from upstream processes. We pursue upstream processes last because they have slack resources, so small amounts of waste upstream that are detected before reaching the constraint are not damaging to throughput.

4. Elevate the system’s constraint(s) . Elevate means “Lift the restriction.” Often the projects pursued in steps 2 and 3 will eliminate the constraint. If the constraint continues to exist after performing steps 2 and 3, look for Six Sigma projects that provide additional resources to the constraint. These might involve, for example, purchasing additional equipment or hiring additional workers with particular skills.

5. If, in the previous steps, a constraint has been broken, go back to step 1. If the constraint has been lifted, you must rethink the entire process. Returning to step 1 takes you back to the beginning of the cycle.

Table 1: Process Scrap rates

The TOC approach is superior to traditional total quality management project selection. For example, consider the data in Table 1. If you apply Pareto analysis to scrap rates, you would begin with Six Sigma projects that reduced the scrap produced by Worker A. In fact, assuming the optimum product mix, Worker A has about 25-percent slack time, so the scrap loss can be made up without shutting down Worker B, who is the constraint. The TOC would suggest that the scrap loss of Worker B and the downstream processes C and D be addressed first, the exact opposite of what Pareto analysis recommends.

Of course, you’ll still need to perform cost-benefit analyses, and you should estimate the probability of the project’s success. But by using the TOC you’ll at least know where to look first for opportunities. I’ll discuss how to select an optimum set of projects from these opportunities in a future column.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Human Metrics

Monday, July 6th, 2009

Six Sigma teaches us to view everything as a process. We should take an objective look at the system, measure the values, form a model, enact changes on the process, and observe the effects of these changes. However, we sometimes want to measure objectively something that is intrinsically subjective, the opinions of people. These fall under the category of what I like to call “Human Metrics.” Some common examples of these metrics are customer satisfaction, perception of quality, and ease of use. How do we accurately measure these values?

Surveys are regularly used as the catchall for human metrics. This has several flaws, though. First, people are not consistent graders, and a 7/10 for one person may be an 8/10 for another. Ultimately, though, this is not a problem because it represents the same sort of variation you will see in any measurement. The second problem is self-selection of responders. This is well documented, and can create extreme disparities between real and actual numbers. A good example of this can be found with call-in surveys. In many cases, only those with a chip on their shoulder will be compelled to call, creating a clearly biased sample. To counter this, sometimes incentives are offered to get a higher response rate, but this brings us to the third problem with surveys, non-response. Where some people may choose to simply not respond to a survey, others will purposely subvert the survey itself by ignoring the questions and answering in some sort of pattern. This is common with incentives, like contests for surveys, because it is so easy to simply hit the number one repeatedly without hearing the questions being asked. It can be hard to pick out this group, and one can only hope that over the long term the collective contributions of these unresponders will balance each other out.

How do you deal with these problems? A common solution is to try to address and eliminate the issues inherent to surveys. Select the sample by hand, normalize the scores across respondents, and remove surveys with obvious patterns or very unusual scoring habits. Ultimately though, even if these methods were perfect at eliminating their respective flaws, you would still be left with the fact that people are bad judges of their own opinions. Thus, you cannot use the responses to predict future behavior. This brings us to the best method for retrieving human metrics, using a proxy.

Measurement by proxy is a method that has existed for millennia. If you know the angle of the sun, you can measure the height of a flagpole by measuring the length of its shadow. You can apply this to human metrics and find values from behaviors that reflect certain opinions. Often, these are the values you care about most. Repeat sales, for example, is a good measurement of customer satisfaction. However, while repeat sales a metric that you can find using existing data, some require testing. For example, if you want a metric for ease of use, then you can look at the time taken to use the product. To test this, one might take a group of people with little or no familiarity with a product and ask them to use it. The time taken does not exactly demonstrate ease of use, but the two are related enough to make this a reasonable proxy in certain situations.

That is not to say that surveys cannot be useful, or don’t have a place. Simply put, they are very easy to implement, and consistent surveys allow the tracking of trends in user opinions. Additionally, measurement by proxy is far from perfect. Other factors in your system can seep into your measurement and taint the values. For example, the number of repeat sales may be artificially increased by having a product with a short lifespan. Naturally, the short lifespan is bad for customer satisfaction, but the proxy would insist otherwise.

In conclusion, as a Six Sigma expert, you should look to be quantitative in your assessment of systems. Human metrics are no exception to this rule. You cannot abandon the Six Sigma philosophy just because “Everyone is different.” Instead, look to measure how they are different.

GD Star Rating
loading...

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...