Armand Feigenbaum: The Forgotten and Rarely Mentioned ‘Quality Guru’

       As I write this PIP, it was slightly more than a week ago the last of the post-World War Two ‘quality gurus’, Armand Feigenbaum, passed away.  You didn’t know that?  I didn’t read or hear about it either shortly after it happened.  Unfortunately I saw some brief mentions of his passing in the social media groups but may have missed others.  I can’t believe this and this is a disservice to a man who made monumental contributions to our profession. 

We deify W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, or Phillip Crosby.  All of them made significant contributions to the quality profession and I’m not denying that.  Feigenbaum, who made many contributions to our profession, made his mark in the United States, so he never got the press and the lemming like worship as those gurus above.  Maybe he was even more ahead of his time than they were. 

Feigenbaum made his mark in the United States right after World War Two when someone who took the approach he advocated was ignored, or worse, by nearly all companies.  I’ve never been able find out why.  Maybe it was because he did not seek the same level of publicity or have an entourage of individuals who sought to profit from his wisdom as the other quality gurus.  He was the first ‘quality guru’ I studied.  While I learned a lot from the other gurus above, as I read their wisdom they repeated many of the concepts Feigenbaum had already mentioned and advocated.

Feigenbaum contributed far more to today’s quality and process improvement movement than most in the profession now understand.  He advocated the concept of ‘Total Quality Control’ which was the title of his landmark work published more than fifty years ago.  The idea of a ‘hidden plant’?  Yep, that’s his.  But in my view his most significant contribution was to focus on quality costs, a core concept.  That approach was later adapted to six sigma which lead to its wider adaptation by business where previous quality and continuous improvement methodologies ran out of gas or fell on their face.

Finally what company did Feigenbaum work for when he applied these principles?  What company is noted as the one which really made six sigma a core part of business?  General Electric and I don’t think that is a coincidence.

Categorical Data Analysis: Sometimes That’s All You Can Get and That is Okay

      If you work in manufacturing, data collection is not usually a problem.  By their nature these operations give off numerous amounts of data and information.  The problem is usually to capture all of it and then filter out what you need from the whole vast collection.

      The world of services and transactional six sigma is more of a challenge.  By their very nature, these operations do not throw off the vast quantities of continuous data.  Yes, transaction counts and time duration are sometimes available. But many transactional process vary significantly in complexity within an area of study so you cannot make the assumptions we do in manufacturing.  It’s not thousands of one uniform product rolling down a conveyor belt.

      What is one to do?  Frequently transactional data is classified into categories.  For example, customer service operations classify the resolution of a customer contact into categories and then various subcategories.  On numerous occasions, teams I work with use Pareto analysis to drill down to root cause of problem areas of focus in these types of operations.

      This is definitely not an ideal approach to take.  But sometimes that is all the data you have and there might be a lot of it to work with.  Also many operations have cyclicality to their data so the frequently espoused idea to ‘take two or three months’ worth of data and use that’ could be a bad idea.  There’s can also be a ‘Hawthorne Effect’ too.  Both of these issues are not generally brought up or acknowledged by the ‘data experts’ who should know better.

      So the next time you have a process improvement opportunity but only categorical data, don’t lose heart.  You can use six sigma rigor to perform the analysis and still improve a process.  The results may positively surprise you.

Lean Six Sigma 2.0: What’s Next Now That Everyone Knows About and Can Use Version 1.0?

      Recently I started to read a McKinsey & Company report titled ‘The Lean Management Enterprise.’  In the Preface the report note it ‘considers how organizations will fare now that more of their competitors may be starting to hear about – and use – the management principles once known as “lean manufacturing.” 

Like all of McKinsey’s work, it is well written and informative, definitely worth a read.  But the quote made me think about what we practitioners of lean six sigma should do now that all our competitors know about and can use existing lean six sigma concepts and practices.        In previous PIPs I noted how some existing tools may have lost their effectiveness.  These include cross training, best practices, benchmarking and Kaizen.

So where do we go for new tools and practices for Lean Six Sigma 2.0?  One area in my mind is the business process management area.  There is now a formal body of knowledge for this area which to me could prove very effective for the control phase of a DMAIC project and the design phase of a DMADV project.

A second area is around the rapidly expanding area of data analytics with the accelerated use of ‘big data.’  Frequently six sigma projects suffer from difficulty obtaining accurate, reliable continuous data.  Big data is putting an informational structure around the vast quantity of data out there.  Tools from this discipline should be adapted for the measure and analyze phases of a DMAIC project.

Lastly is an area which made some inroads to lean six sigma but not enough in my view is formal project management.  We have the process improvement frameworks of DMAIC, DMADV, and on a smaller scale PDCA.  But all too frequently management of a project falls short.  The most successful projects lean six sigma projects I’ve seen had an experienced project manager on the team.

Just like an engine that uses spark plugs needs a tune-up, lean six sigma definitely needs an upgrade.  We’re past that 30,000 mile point in lean six sigma.  In future PIPs, I’ll explore additional ideas and recommendations I have for Lean Six Sigma 2.0.

 

Leadership: A Term Some Say Is Overused But is Sorely Lacking in Process Improvement

Over my many years working on and in processes to improve them, I’ve noticed a concerning trend more often than I would like to see.  In most organizations, an improvement focus is parroted in internal conversations with senior leadership, all the way to the top.  It is probably slipped in with dinner engagements with clients and customers.  After all no one would dare say they weren’t focused on this important concern.

But back in the office and down in the trenches it gets shoved into second place or maybe even further back.  Many experts say it is because of the ‘old’ quality-productivity-cost triangle.  You’ve heard it before: “pick two of them since you can’t have all three.”  So the choice is made to “get it out the door to meet deadline” and not push up the figures in the operating budget.  Why is that so?

My view is we are sorely lacking true leaders in our organizations.  Men or women who will stand up and say “No we aren’t going to do that!”  That takes leadership.  But you want to know where leadership is needed even more?  It is the executives above that individual who agree with the decision and support him or her.

Some would say you can’t follow that approach in all cases.  Maybe, maybe not.  But I would say if those on the line have to make that decision in many if not all cases, you’ve got a bigger process problem than you may realize.  The voice of the process is screaming ‘help’ at you and you are consciously or unconsciously not listening.  Broken processes don’t self-heal and will get worse.

If our organizations are going to improve, we need leaders to support the process improvement initiatives.  To me the alternative is the ‘race to the bottom’ which you’ve heard before.  As you start heading down toward that bottom, things get warmer.  And eventually you will get to a place which is very warm indeed.

Do Awards and Certifications Justify The Cost And Effort to Obtain and Retain?

      Industries have awards that many organizations seek to obtain.  The awards range from the Malcom Baldridge National Quality Award and the Deming Prize, to smaller regional and industry specific awards.  Certifications include the range of those from ISO to industry specific such as the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for information technology related organizations.

      I have been involved with some of these awards and certifications in the past.  If you have, you know the criticisms/concerns put forth.  They are intended to judge the organization’s everyday activities.  Proper procedures and processes are to be documented and followed.  Appropriate evidence to show adherence is required.  But is this how firms perform their duties every day?  My experience has been somewhat but not as consistent as they should.

      When it is time to enter for an award or certification/recertification, it’s a mad scramble.  Project or product evidence’ must be gathered.  In the case of a manufactured product, ‘extra special care’ is taken to make sure the product is top quality.  If it is a service, the deck is frequently stacked toward a positive spin.

      And then there are the costs.  In addition to those noted above, there are the costs to the certifying organizations which can be substantial.  Many organizations call in expert consultants to help them prepare.  The costs can add up to very big bucks quickly.

      When it’s done and the award or certification is issued, does the organization gain additional customers or revenue from the award or certification?  My experience has been very little if any.  The flip side though is some contracts specify some type of certification is necessary so this becomes a necessary expense.  So if you want to, by all means go for the award or certification but don’t expect it to be financially rewarding.

Continuous Improvement: Do We In The Profession Need To Take Our Own Medicine?

      In the last few PIPs, I went over a number of tools and techniques in the quality improvement profession.  They are cross training, best practices, benchmarking & kaizen events.  Each, if properly applied in the right circumstances, is powerful.  My concern is those four and a number of others are losing their effectiveness in the complex organizations we work in today.  Have our organizations developed a resistance and like some animal and vegetable pests, become ‘immune’ to the power and effectiveness of our tools and techniques?

       Which begs a question which I have been wrestling with since I started the series which is do we focus to improve our profession with the intense focus we work to improve our professions and industries?  I remember reading a baseball pitcher late in his career saying “I throw the baseball just as hard as I always did but it doesn’t go as fast.”  Are we in this profession experiencing the same effect with our tools and techniques?

      My view is that we have improve our profession but nowhere near as quickly as we need to.  Our past efforts have greatly improved organizations of all sizes and types.  But most if not all of the low to middle hanging fruit has been picked.  To paraphrase a prominent management author, as powerful as our tools and techniques are those that ‘got us here are not going to get us there’.  We need to continually improve our profession’s performance.

      So what should we do?  We need to keep our eyes out for tools and techniques in other industries and professions which we can ‘adapt and adopt.’  Ask some of your neighbors and members of other business and civic organizations what are some tools and techniques they use.  We also need to remember to not take the ‘vaccination theory’ approach to whatever education, training or certification have.  All our knowledge will need to be ‘continually improved’ with booster shots, ‘now and forever.’

 

Kaizen Events: Today’s Processes and Services Aren’t So Easily Changed in a Week

This is the last in my series of PIPs where I examine tools and techniques which were relevant and effective for process improvement in the past.  The business world where we earn our living has changed and some tools, such as Kaizen Events, can be very difficult to implement in many processes and services in organizations today.

A Kaizen (aka Rapid Improvement) Event is conceptually a very potent tool.  The idea is to gather a cross functional team for a tightly focused, short duration (such as a week) effort facilitated by a lean expert.  The team has full authority to tear apart a process or processes, develop solutions, and implement the changes during that timeframe.  Results are immediate.

For small, single-location, non-automated, non-regulated processes or services, this tool can still be very effective.  Unfortunately most organizations have few if any of those processes or services left.  Today we have globally structured, multiple-location, regulated, and automated processes or services which cannot be changed without a focus on impact to other areas or great difficulty.

Global supply chains and outsourced services leverage their resources across many customers and cannot quickly make the changes the team seeks.  Many others have significant automation and IT intensive tools for their processes or services where support groups need to investigate how to make those changes.  Other industries have government or certifying ‘best practices’ which you would be foolish to change without investigation and approval.

Kaizen Events are powerful under proper circumstances and by all means use them if you can implement the findings quickly.   It’s a challenge to do nowadays though.  The Japanese definition of Kaizen refers to incremental improvement which is how it has to work in many of our processes or services today.

 

Benchmarking – A Very Powerful Tool Which Has Had Its Day in the Sun

In this PIP, I continue my series on various tools and techniques whose relevance and effectiveness are not as potent for process improvement as in the past.  I’m going to look at benchmarking and how a great concept became prevalent and over time lost its potency as a process improvement tool.

In the early 1990s, the concept of benchmarking swept through US businesses.  The idea was to personally see and examine an operation you would like to ‘learn from’ to improve your operation(s).  And in a number of cases, practitioners ‘thought outside the box’ and benchmarked similar operations in other industries.  Done right with proper preparation, selecting the right personnel to participate, and with the right follow up back at home, it worked wonders.  Many companies made massive improvements to their operations as a result.

Fast forward twenty years and the world of business has changed.  First of all any company which doesn’t already have efficient and effective operations is probably history by now.  The last economic downturn and global environment of today put them under.  Secondly many industries have standard practices to conform to various regulations.  You and your competitors have to comply with them or else.

Thirdly companies you’d like to benchmark are probably not even in your home country any longer.  Off shore and in a country with a different approach to visitors to their operations ends benchmarking them before you even start.

Finally like most quality tools, benchmarking does not provide long-term competitive advantage.  And if we shine a harsh light on all, most of them never really did.  It didn’t take everyone else very long to learn and adapt.  Now I will point out there is a world of difference between knowing and doing, and I know the latter is usually a minority.  But in the brutally competitive world of today, benchmarking is ‘so 1990s’ and just not the powerful tool it was then.

Best Practices: They Usually Aren’t And Keep Them To Yourself

      With this PIP, I continue to examine various tools and techniques whose relevance and effectiveness are not as potent for process improvement as in the past.  I’m going to look at best practices and two aspects of them which you should question.

      First is best practices in many cases is an oxymoron.  Frequently they are just some practices someone with both extensive process knowledge and good technical writing skills put down on paper.  No one puts them to the test.  All too often large portions are pulled straight out of a vendor’s instruction or equipment manual.  They might just as well be etched in stone because no one questions them or shines the light of continuous process improvement on them either.

      Second is they are no longer exclusive.  In the past, industry followers looked to industry leaders to copy, steal, borrow, or pick your own term for absconding their best practices.  In the ultra-competitive, standardize everything world we work in they aren’t exclusive.  People move around and consultants hire on to various firms so both introduce them to the next organization they join.  Exclusivity is no longer there since everyone is probably doing the exact same thing, plus or minus about 5%.  We’re playing not follow the leader but follow the follower.

      So shine a strong light on your so called best practices and make sure they really are.  Question your process experts to ensure best practices are reviewed and kept up to date, especially with rapid changes in technology.  If your practices are exclusively the best, other organizations may look to benchmark your organization.  You might want to avoid unless you want your competitors to have that knowledge.  We’ll look at benchmarking in the next PIP.

Cross Training – Many Jobs Where it Worked are Long Gone

      Starting with this PIP, I will examine some tools and techniques which were relevant and effective for process improvement in the past.  Times change though and many aren’t as effective today as they were a few years ago.  The first of these I will look at is cross training.

      The concept of cross training is great.  A fellow employee ‘fills in’ for another employee who is away for a period of time.  The employee who steps up is familiar with the others’ duties and knows the company and customers.  It’s usually more effective than hiring a temporary employee.  Performance may not be 100% the same but for a few days it works out fine.

      There are two problems with this though in the work world of the twenty first century. First many of the jobs which could be performed this easily by another employee are mostly gone.  They were manual intensive manufacturing or clerical jobs. Nearly all have been either automated or outsourced.  Many of those that remain require a higher skill level and permanent familiarity with duties of the position.

      The second is most companies are very lean now.  If an employee is able to do their present job and also a colleagues’ it is going to raise a question in someone’s mind if both are then necessary.  That’s probably unfair but is the world we now live in.  Granted many times cross-trained employees fill in is during times when the volume of work is down which allows this.  But there will be a suspicion in someone’s mind.

      I’m not saying cross training will never work ever again for anyone.  In some cases it will but it is not going to be as easily applied tool today as it once was.

Your First Practical Process Improvement Project – Five Necessary Points

This PIP I’ll dive right in without the usual lead in.  We’ll cover five necessary points to consider and get agreement on before we start a process improvement project.

First, start with a small project. It should not be too big or too ambitious. It should be big enough to be clearly beneficial to your department and the entire organization.  A Goldilocks approach is best.

Second, your organization’s top management must be committed to the project. Not involved but committed. The distinction? RIT quality improvement instructor John Compton described the difference: “To make a bacon and egg breakfast, the chicken was involved but the pig was committed.”

Third, try to find something that “slightly hurts” the organization at this time. A little pain is ideal and for our purposes, it should involve something your department is directly responsible for that affects most if not all of the organization.

Fourth, set up a system to track the cost of the project before you begin. For the type of basic project you should start with, labor is probably the most costly component.  Fifth, review team size and skills.  Keep the team small, no more than four or five individuals, and involve the areas “touched” by the processes you want to improve.

I can’t guarantee any project will be a success but if for your first one you use these five points you will be on the road to delivering results for your department and organization.

Which Is Better? ‘The Best Money Can Buy’ or ‘Best Value For The Dollar.’

      “There is a huge difference between ‘the best that money can buy’ and ‘the best value for the dollar.’ Knowing which is most important to the customer is crucial.” – Anonymous.  We need to keep this quote in mind as we dig into our process improvement projects.  It becomes even more important as you deal with such process improvement trends as “exceeding customer expectations.”

Is exceeding customer expectations an appropriate approach to take?  My view is before you do you must deeply and carefully consider the long-term implications.  Your enterprise, whatever its’ size, serves various clients, consumers and customers. They all demand and expect the best value for the dollar. That’s fair, and if you can’t meet that standard, you’re not going to be in business for too long.

Be careful though.  If you take the exceeding customer expectations approach literally you are leaving money on the table. Another term is over-engineering the product and that doesn’t always make sense (or cents) to me.  Additionally, you’ve now raised the bar; this new product or service level will be ‘table stakes’ in your customers’ eyes. If you don’t hit that level with every product or service, every transaction, every single day, you have now created a problem you didn’t need to have in the first place.

After careful analysis and reflection, you may decide exceeding the customer’s expectations is the right thing to do.  If so, by all means do it and may sure your organization does it well.  But don’t say you will and fail to deliver.  Over promising and under delivering is another sure path to eventual closure of your enterprise.  A better approach is to use the same words but rearranged differently: under promise and over deliver.

Practical Process Improvement (PPI) PIPs are:

• Views, estimates, predictions, and/or forecasts from over thirty years’ experience in the process improvement trenches
• We will post new PPI PIPs periodically – please check back often
• Three or four paragraphs in length with three to four sentences in each
• They DO NOT represent the views of members of the firms’ current or past employers, clients, or others we associate with.

‘Goldilocks Approach’ to Team Membership: A Good Technique When You Are Solutioning

      If you are on a six sigma or other process improvement project, coming up with solutions can be a challenge.  While it is essential to have subject matter experts (SMEs) on the project for their valuable contributions, it is sometimes a good idea to have someone ‘just familiar’ with the area who can see the current situation and possible solutions from a slightly different perspective.

      A number of years ago, I was at a seminar put on by one of my mentors, Dr. Harold S. Haller http://www.haroldhaller.com. At the seminar Dr. Haller gave a great example of this.  It was during World War II and a new United States warplane had been introduced to the European Theater.  The leader of the Army Air Corp at the time was concerned an excessive number of planes were being shot down.  So he asked the manufacturer of the plane to send one of their technical experts to England to see if he could determine what the problem might be.

      The first thing the expert did was ask the maintenance crews to take a line drawing of the plane from all angles out to each plane and put marks where there were bullet holes.  This surprised all those present but they did as requested.  After some time, they came back and showed it to him and the others.  They noticed that every one of the plane’s diagrams had numerous bullet holes except for a large area under the pilot’s seat.  The expert announced the problem was something under that area.  When asked how he determined that he said planes which had been shot in that area were not returning from battle.  As I remember the problem was with the planes’ design was inadequate armor around the fuel pump which was fixed and that problem went away.

      As talented as that fine group of airmen were, I don’t think they would have come up with the solution that quickly on their own.  So when you are at the ‘solutioning’ phase of the project, it’s a good idea have someone with some knowledge of the area.  It’s similar to a ‘Goldilocks Approach’ to project knowledge – not too much or not too little but just right.

Project New Revenue or Cost Savings: Make Sure You Dig Deep to Find True Values for Each

      A few years ago, I worked in the strategic planning department for a large publishing organization.  The group would assign a project manager to a proposed initiative from senior management and then others in department would be team members to contribute their expertise.  I don’t think I ever worked with a group of such talented individuals during my entire career.

      One individual originally worked for one of the big auditing organizations and she was the ‘go to’ person for financial analysis.  Over her career, she developed her ability to focus intently on true incremental new revenue and incremental cost savings.  On the revenue side, many individuals would optimistically state an initiative would bring in six figure incremental revenue.  She would begin to ask a series of programmed questions which she had in her head.  By the end of the session, much of the supposed incremental new revenue was either built on a very flimsy set of assumptions or was ‘switch revenue’ from another area to the new initiative.

      On the cost side, a significant amount of the cost structure was fixed.  This was good for new initiatives which would bring in true incremental revenue with no cost increases.  But some initiatives proposed significant cost savings.  Again she would ask a different series of programmed questions.  And again at the end of the session, many of the supposed costs savings were based on flimsy assumptions or realistically not going to happen given the cost structure.

      Here are two takeaways.  First always involve members of those in your financial organization on your projects.  More than once, I’ve heard project leaders say those from finance are too negative.  Get over that and bring them in from the beginning.  Second make sure at least one of your financial representatives knows the true revenue and cost drivers of your business like the individual I mentioned above knew those in the publishing business.  This will save you and the team from embarrassment during and after the project.

Hypothesis Testing: Remember There are BOTH Statistical and Practical Problem and Solution Statements

      Recently I went through a series of (free) online Lean Six Sigma videos by Matt Hansen at http://www.statstuff.com/.  The videos are excellent and in the series on hypothesis testing, I was reminded again how important it is to remember there are both statistical AND practical steps.  Many of us get so enthralled with the power of statistical testing from the ease of desktop software nowadays, we forget the practical implications of the findings.

      Matt suggests a four step process for hypothesis testing:

1.     Practical Problem: State the problem as a practical yes/no question.

2.     Statistical Problem: Convert the problem to an analytical question identifying the statistical tool/method.

3.     Statistical Solution: Interpret the results of the hypothesis test with an analytical answer.

4.     Practical Solution: Interpret the analytical answer in a practical way.

My experience has been failure sometimes occurs between steps 3 and 4 when it is time to ‘bring it on home.’  The statistical test has performed its’ duty when interpretation allows us to either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.  What happens is we don’t subject the statistical solution to a common sense dose of a practical solution.  Subject matter expert interpretation is essential at this step.

So don’t check your common sense at the door when you venture into the world of hypothesis testing.  This tool is one of the key members of the six sigma tool kit.  But you don’t want to perform all the pre-work to gather appropriate data, perform a correct hypothesis test and then blow it in the home stretch with false interpretation.

How Would W. Edwards Deming Fare in the Globally Competitive Economy We Live in Today?

In the early 1980s, I was first exposed to the teachings of the quality gurus.  As a recent college graduate, I found what Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and Phillip Crosby professed very profound.  I was also fortunate to attend one of Deming’s 4-day Seminars in 1985.  In my bookcase, I still have the seminar material and took a ton of notes.

A few weeks ago, I hauled out the material and looked through it for the first time in nearly ten years.  I noted how a lot has changed in the world of business and the quality profession since I last looked at the material and after nearly thirty years since the seminar.  And I wondered if Deming were still alive, would he still stick inflexibly to his philosophy? Or would he, in the spirit of continual improvement, have modified aspects of it to deal with the radically different, globally competitive economy of today?

Two things stand out in my mind where Deming would have difficulty today.  First was around financial discipline which he brushed aside whenever it was asked and would not give examples. Just do this and you will be financially rewarded.  Six sigma has taught all of us the importance of financial discipline around process improvement.  We need to take care of and measure customer needs, process specifications, and the financial metrics.

Second was it was ‘his way or the highway’ of you had to follow his system to the letter of the law or else. No flexibility allowed. That was a serious flaw in his approach even to me in my mid-twenties.  It’s been years since I read some of his later writings but I don’t remember Deming changing his position on this point.  The economic situation in Japan during the last twenty years after Deming passed away might have given him a new perspective.

Personally I think Deming would have continually improved his approach.  I suspect he didn’t go over to post-war Japan with his philosophy already set in stone.  He learned what worked, made changes, and taught all of us a better way to run our businesses.

 Control Phase of a Six Sigma Project:  Bring it on Home Yet Prepare to “Sustain the Gains”

      The control phase of a six sigma project is when the end is in sight.  Some members of the team have been juggling their ‘regular, full-time day jobs’ while also investing many hours on the project.  Non urgent e-mails and other items have been piling up.  Spouses and children might like to see the six sigma team member on a week day evening.  If the members’ boss isn’t directly a beneficiary of the project, they might be pressing, hard, to ‘get them back’ and working on their normal responsibilities.

      So at this phase it is very tempting to push ahead quickly and, maybe, cut a few corners.  And that is dumb, dangerous, and could undermine the long term success of the project.  I’ve read in more than one place that the purpose of the control phase is to ‘sustain the gains.’  The team with support of the black belt and sponsor/champion must put in place a control plan with supporting processes and procedures for the transition to run and maintain.

      What is needed?  A realistic control plan put together with the process owners who will be responsible for the processes going forward.  Control charts are important for the objective measures of the selected solutions but don’t forget the subjective portions either.  A thorough communications plan is critical also.  Gathering lessons learned while the project is ‘fresh’ in the minds of the team is very important also.  And finally you are looking forward to the celebration party.

      So don’t let up on the gas as you go into the control phase.  The project was undertaken because the initial problem was causing some sort of pain externally and/or internally. You, the team, and all involved have invested a tremendous amount of your time to get to this point.  Take the time to fully transition the project to run and maintain.  That’s the best thing you can do to make sure, in a few years’ time, you will see the teams’ work delivering value to the organization.

 

A Committed Champion Is Absolutely Vital Foundation for Project Success

      The other day, I was reminded again how important it is to have a committed champion to your project.  Not just involved but committed.  Many years ago, a quality/six sigma mentor compared the difference between involvement and commitment with a bacon & egg breakfast analogy.  He noted for that breakfast, the chicken was involved but the pig was committed.

      I’m sure everyone knows the key responsibilities a six sigma, or other type of improvement project, champion needs to have.  All are important but two keys from my past experience are to provide political cover and remove organizational roadblocks.  Organizational experience and savvy play a huge role here.  One or more members of the organization who are happy with the status quo may, correctly or incorrectly, perceive they are going to lose power and influence with the change and will dump as many barrels of molasses in front of the team as they can.

      While you cannot always ‘choose’ your champion, you need to provide him or her with proper care and feeding.  Frequently your champion will be very busy but find the time and medium to communicate, then communicate, and finally communicate some more.  Remember the basics of preferred communication styles.  And above all else, whenever something escalates during the project, get a heads-up to him or her immediately.  There’s an old adage to ‘never surprise the boss’.  It applies to project champions too.

      So take care of your champion.  You have enough challenges with the internal aspects of your project.  The champion will assist with the external aspects which can undermine the project.  Do whatever it takes to keep your champion committed.  It is essential.

Understanding Probability is a Key Foundational Element for Six Sigma Statistics

      When I took my first two statistics classes as an undergraduate, I enjoyed both but never completely mastered the basics as well as I should have.  I memorized how to apply the various formulas for appropriate situations, did dozens and dozens of practice problems, and got through both classes by rote.  It wasn’t until years later when I took applied, inferential statistics training as part of my quality assurance duties, I realized where I dropped the ball the first time.  I never REALLY learned AND understood the basics of probability.
      Probability is a core foundational element of inferential statistics.  Some examples are probability distributions, confidence intervals, and that always challenging concept for new belts to master called hypothesis testing. I can’t think of an area where it doesn’t come into play. 

      I’m not going to go over all of them but one concept which is important for ‘statistical thinking’ is that of MECE or mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive.  When two events are mutually exclusive, they both cannot occur at the same time.  If you add in collectively exhaustive, where the two events consider all possible outcomes, you have formulated an all-encompassing hypothesis.  Very powerful.

      If you are working with Yellow Belts, Green Belts, and even Black Belts who struggle with hypothesis testing and other similar concepts, recommend they go back and learn probability.  They should take whatever time and practice is necessary.  I’m very confident if they do, some of the fog around six sigma statistics will lift and the bright light of understanding will come shining through.

Practical Process Improvement: Is Doesn’t Have to Be a Manhattan Project

Many years ago when I worked for a Fortune 500 publishing company, I got into a six sigma discussion with one of our contractors.  His firm was much smaller and this individual had a few decades of ‘in the trenches’ experience in operations.  The conversation continued until one point where he said six sigma is a good idea but like too many other initiatives he had been through, we would turn it  into another ‘Manhattan Project’ which wasn’t necessary for the situation.

After many years’ experience, I tend agree with his assessment at times.  There’s an old saying that when you give someone a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  Many of us trained and experienced with the application of six sigma take the same approach as someone with that hammer.  We treat every process improvement opportunity as a situation which requires a full blown six sigma project with complete treatment of DMAIC.  That isn’t always necessary.

A situational, scaled approach is better.  Long before six sigma, quality professional used the Shewhart/Deming ‘Plan/Do/Check (or Study)/Act’ improvement cycle approach to problem solving.  You remember that don’t you?  Baseline performance at the plan step and test those ideas at the do step.  At the check step, compare performance before and after, then if successful, act to standardize performance.  Deceptively simple but from my experience very effective.

Six Sigma’s DMAIC framework is appropriate for many process improvement projects but not all.  A more basic approach can do wonders in the right circumstances.  Remember you don’t have to take a bazooka to an anthill.  

Root Cause Analysis: If You Hit a Roadblock, Bring in Some of Whys’ Close Relatives

At times digging into the true root cause of an incident or problem can be frustrating.  Process improvement experts are taught to ask the “Five Whys” until you get to root cause.  That’s great in theory but when you and the team of subject matter experts dig through information to get to root cause, you will sometimes hit a roadblock.

To get over that hurdle, I picked up a suggestion from a production editor when I worked for a large publication many years ago.  In one meeting where a cross-functional team was at work to find the root cause of a problem, we weren’t making any progress toward root cause.  He suggested we ask some of the other “Ws” journalists ask: Who, What, When, Where, Which, How and If.  The production editor noted the root cause analysis framework is similar to the technique a reporter uses to cover a news story.

It worked brilliantly and I have used it ever since.  We asked who was the operator when the incident occurred?  We got their names and recognized they weren’t the regulars on that machine.  That triggered another ‘Why weren’t the regular operators performing the task?” The flu was making the rounds and one was involved in a fender bender on their way to work that day.  We were off, back on track, and eventually got to the true root cause.

   So when asking Why no longer seems to get the team any closer to root cause, invite some of Whys’ other relatives to the table.  You will find they will help you and their kinsman through temporary barriers and continue down the path to root cause.  They work as journalists have known for a long time.

House of Quality: A Difficult yet Powerful Tool But Make Sure You Have the Appropriate Members of the Company on the Team and In the Room

      Listening to a course lecture a few months ago, I heard the instructor ask if anyone in the audience had participated in a House of Quality (Aka Quality Function Deployment) exercise.  A dozen or so raised their hands.  The instructor then asked if anyone would ever willing participate in one again.  Not one hand went up.

      By its’ design, the tool can be complicated.  There are multiple tables and interactions.  Further there are calculations required.  Underlying all this work is the need to get accurate information to drive completion.  And this is where there can be a real challenge.

      Two critical listings are the customer requirements and comparison with the competition.  Typical members of a six sigma team are not qualified to accurately list customer requirements let alone prioritize them.  It’s the same with comparison to the competition.  It will be difficult to avoid an internal company bias to the items on both these lists.

      That is an area where it is especially important for a sales or marketing representative to be on the team.  He or she will be out on the front lines listening to customers about their likes and dislikes about your product or service features.  And they will hear how you size up compared to your competitors.  Good stuff to hear and record for the project. (February 1, 2014)