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.