Visit the Cox-Box Store for 2010 Calendars and Mugs

The Cox-Box is Copyright © 2000-2010 iSixSigma LLC and Gary P. Cox – All Rights Reserved
Reproduction Without Permission Is Prohibited – Request Permission

The September issue of US News & World Report has the most recent rankings of the Best Colleges. However, I think what's interesting is the article "Is College Still Worth it?" Instead of which college to attend, the question it asks is whether to go to college, given the rising costs at as much as $50,000 a year.

What is the return on investment in higher education? What is the return? How do we measure? The article didn’t answer these questions but pointed in the right direction.

Unfortunately, what's not clear is whether the product an education is getting any better or any easier to evaluate.

If colleges were businesses, they would be ripe for hostile takeovers, complete with serious cost-cutting and painful reorganizations. You can be sure those business analysts would ask: Is the consumer getting the product we promised? What do you actually learn here? Can you guarantee a job? Admission to graduate school? There are ways to gauge these things, but colleges have just recently fended off a movement to demand such outcomes measures.

The common argument to support the ROI has been the fact that, on average, "people with a college degree earn significantly more money over their lifetimes than those without a college degree." But the flaw is in the unspoken "on average" in such data and the meaning of "significantly". The Six Sigma training in me always makes me ask "what is the variation in each group?" and "what are the factors that contribute to the variation?”

People making decisions based on such general differences between averages run the risk of not getting sufficient ROI or any at all. Although education decisions are highly personal, people could apply DMAIC thinking to make it a more informed decision.

• Define: Decide what return you want from higher education. The metrics can be money (marketable skills), connection/networking, joy of learning, knowledge and understanding of the world itself, etc. Prioritize what is most Critical to your Education (CTE) and focus on maximizing that, very much like a CTQ defined for a LSS project.
• Measure: Collect data on how well each college delivers the CTE metric, and make sure that all data are equivalent or measured similarly before comparing them.
• Analyze: Ask the question "what critical factors contribute to the higher value of the CTE metric?" For example, if your CTE is marketable skills that pay well and you identified colleges whose graduates received the highest starting salaries, the question is "what factors helped them achieve these skills?" They can be academic disciplines, participation in Co-operative programs, leading a student organization, faculty quality, student quality, student/faculty ratio, or some other indicators used by US News in their rankings. The factors that are most critical to learning marketable skills may not help you understand the world better, and vice versa. Based on a better understanding of relevant causal relationships, choose colleges that excel at those critical factors.
• Improve: Now you are in a college. Focus on critical factors: choose the right major, team up with the best students, apply for an intern program, join a student club, etc. This is where you realize the return, but only if you focus on the critical factors.
• Control: The world changes. Your goals and priorities change, too. You will discover new critical factors that are more important to your current goal. Whether you are still in college or have started your career, continue to understand and focus on the critical factors that help you improve. That's lifetime learning. That's the spirit of Lean Six Sigma continuous improvement.

[I will write about applying LSS in education and about ROI in LSS training vs. conventional education in my future blogs.]

Making a seamless transition of an improved process from the project leader to the process owner is the topic of “Getting a Grip,” an article in the September/October issue of iSixSigma Magazine. Author Sean Rohen has seen firsthand how the transition can go awry; he is a Champion and Master Black Belt and has worked as an organizational development consultant for more than 15 years. To offer suggestions for how to make a smooth handoff, he’s taken inspiration from Gail Devers, three-time Olympic gold medalist in track and field, who analyzed the devastating handoff misses in the men’s and women’s 4 x 100 meter relay races during the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Rohen compares the project leader to the incoming runner and the process owner to the outgoing runner – both have critical roles they need to fulfill for the “baton” handoff to be successful.

The incoming runner must:
1. Have the eyes
2. Get there
3. Announce the handoff

The outgoing runner must:
1. Not peek
2. Give a good target
3. Keep an outstretched hand

Unfortunately, the video of Devers’ analysis that Rohen references in the article has been removed from YouTube LLC’s site “due to terms of use violations.” I’ve contacted the Associated Press, which produced the video, and requested permission to use it but have not yet heard back.

Visit the Cox-Box Store for 2010 Calendars and Mugs

The Cox-Box is Copyright © 2000-2010 iSixSigma LLC and Gary P. Cox – All Rights Reserved
Reproduction Without Permission Is Prohibited – Request Permission

I was reading the USAirways in-flight magazine while flying from Philadelphia to Boston the other day. The issue's Must Read is an excerpt from Chapter 1 of the book Your Call Is (Not That) Important to Us by Emily Yellin. I thought it was interesting as it is filled with horror stories of how Customer Service treated (or more accurately, mistreated) customers.

Bad customer service is prevalent in almost all industries, institutions and governments, and every individual has their personal stories. I’ve had several encounters in the past few months that were so aggravating and infuriating that I would never do business with them again. But my purpose here is not to whine or complain, but to ask why. Why do businesses choose to treat customers badly and refuse to listen? Yet, everyday they wonder why their products don't sell and customers don't come back.

As a Lean Six Sigma professional, I connect everything we do to the Voice of the Customer: Definition of defects, CTQs, 7 types of waste, etc. No tool or concept can help us improve our business better than understanding customer needs. It seems painfully obvious that every customer interaction is an opportunity to learn about the market and improve the business. Market leaders use such deep understanding of customer needs as a strategic weapon to develop superior products, customer intimacy, and operational excellence.

There are some commonly mentioned causes for poor customer service, such as focus on cost, wrong measure of performance, functional silos, or simply not caring (because of monopoly). Is such a problem an opportunity to introduce Lean Six Sigma to the organization or an indicator that Lean Six Sigma deployment would likely fail? Is Lean Six Sigma a solution in these organizations? Or is Lean Six Sigma even compatible to the culture and management of such organizations? I'd like to hear about your experience.

Recently, someone asked me what I thought to be the biggest mistake of a manager. I believe that managers can get so caught up with processes that they forget about the people. People are what drives an organization. People are not machines, they are emotional. A manager needs to be able to sense the emotional response of the people around him, then respond in a positive way that helps the person stay on track while working within their process. Behaviour of the workforce changes whenever there is a significant emotional event...good or bad. You'll see it at work a lot. Someone is going through a divorce, their work product is impacted. Someone gets engaged, also impacts their work product. As a manager myself, I have found my job to be less about the processes I am responsible for, and more about the people reponsible for carrying out the work. When I think of servant leadership, this quote comes to mind..."I work for my people, but I report to my boss."

Visit the Cox-Box Store for 2010 Calendars and Mugs

The Cox-Box is Copyright © 2000-2010 iSixSigma LLC and Gary P. Cox – All Rights Reserved
Reproduction Without Permission Is Prohibited – Request Permission

The internet has brought us so much more information. Statistics are often used to support our opinions or views, and they show up in all types of media, including the internet. But are we more informed and educated on issues as common and important as health care? Let's take a look at some numbers that appeared in a recent US News article "Health Reform Takes Aim at Hospital Readmission Rates."

Here is one.

A study of heart failure patients published in June revealed that as hospital stays shortened between 1993 and 2006, the readmission rate jumped by 3 percentage points.

So how much does "jumped by 3 percentage points" inform us about the change? Is it too much or too little? Compared to what baseline? It could be a lot if the rate was at 1% and is now 4%, or it could be insignificant if it was 90%. What is the variation or measurement error?

Here is another example:

The latest data show, for example, that Florida Hospital in Orlando has a rate of 23.0 percent for heart attack patients, compared to a much-better-than-average 15.9 percent at Sarasota Memorial Hospital. In Iowa, a pneumonia readmission rate of 20.8 percent at Trinity Regional Medical Center in Fort Dodge compares with 14.6 percent at Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids.

Is 23.0% really different from 15.9%? How do you define "much-better-than-average?" Are 20.8% and 14.6% different? What is the variation within each hospital year to year? What is the variation among all the hospitals? How can you determine if the two are different if you don't know these variations?

There is a table showing 10 hospitals with the Highest Readmission Rates (31.6-32.4%) and 10 with the lowest (17.3-19.3%), with an introductory statement that "Medicare payments to hospitals that readmit too many patients within 30 days of discharge will be trimmed. " How do you know whether the difference observed is due to statistical variation in the system or a particular hospital? Or in other words, the best/worst ones could show up as the worst/best the next time you measure, without any change in their own practices?

The following two statistics come under the subtitle Better Stats. (Really?)

Three months after the program was adopted at a 30-bed unit within St. Mary's last year, the 30-day readmission rate had dropped to 7 percent from 12 percent."

Jerry Penso, the group's quality director, says the "all cause" readmission rate for older patients is 13.8 percent, compared with the 20 percent national average.

How do you know if the drop from 12% to 7% is not due to statistical variation? What would be the value if we measured in another 30 days? And again, is 13.8% really different from the average (20%)? Or is it just statistical variation?

These questions are obvious to people familiar with Edwards Deming's management teaching. His books Out of the Crisis (1982) and The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education (1994) beautifully illustrated the importance of statistical thinking and the devastating effects of incorrect use of data and measures.

The world is rapidly changing, and we know its impact. However, there is still a lot that hasn't changed for decades, including the need to learn and continuously improve our ability to understand the change around us. If not, we will continue to be misled by the wrong information and decisions.

Health care is on everyone’s mind nowadays, from individuals to the government. Employers often try to lower health care expenses by sponsoring wellness programs. How effective are these programs? Not much, according to a report by the National Institute for Health Care Reform:

While employer wellness programs have spread rapidly in recent years, few employers implement programs likely to make a meaningful difference in employees’ health—customized, integrated, comprehensive, diversified programs strongly linked to a firm’s business strategy and strongly championed by senior leadership and managers throughout the company.

A successful program involves many factors, the majority of which (not surprisingly) overlap with those of other corporate change initiatives, such as Quality and Continuous Improvement. For example, just take a look at the Key Takeaways from this report:

• Customization. "Programs need to be customized to suit the culture and situation of a particular employer. One-size-fits-all programs ... are unlikely to make a significant impact either in participation or outcomes." Sound familiar? How many Lean Six Sigma initiatives started with a cultural and strategic assessment to understand the readiness and fit in the company?
• Clear Intent with Executive Sponsorship. "Clarity from senior leadership in linking wellness to the organization’s business strategy is important: ... selling wellness to employees as initiatives for their sole benefit, or selling wellness in an environment of discord or financial turmoil, are likely to be futile." Does every employee understand "Why" they need to participate in wellness, Lean or Six Sigma for themselves and for the company as a whole? What does it take to make it real and meaningful to a rational and intelligent person?
• Communication. "In addition to strong messaging from senior leadership, successful programs tend to have both dedicated wellness staff and informal champions within the company ... to keep the message fresh and keep employees engaged." Employees have their daily jobs, family and life priorities. Unless they are supported and feel the compelling reason constantly, they will not change their priorities and thus behaviors. Employee engagement is the job of senior leaders, and it requires dedicated resources.
• Integration. "Programs that are comprehensive, integrated and diversified stand the best chance of success: Behavior modification programs offered in isolation don’t have a strong track record." To generate results, a new program must support the business and people. It’s not uncommon to see new Lean and Six Sigma projects created for the purpose of training or certification, not linked to an employee’s job or aligned to business objectives. As a result, as soon as the project is done, trained belts go right back to where they were and how they worked. No real improvement and no behavioral change.
• Right Incentives. "[I]ncentives should be designed to incrementally reward discrete activities that improve or maintain health. ... Employers with successful programs emphasized the importance of non-financial incentives, such as corporate and peer recognition for wellness achievements." Having the right incentives is critical. People behave the way they are being measured and rewarded. Many of the best Lean Six Sigma professionals I know embrace the methodologies simply because it’s the right thing to do and they are passionate about it. Financial rewards tied to improvement may result in "firefighting" behavior, similar to weight loss:

“The same people win every year. They lose weight. They get paid for it. They gain weight back. They lose it again. They get paid again.” Indeed, experts noted that a program that pays for improvement but does not genuinely engage employees, runs the risk of incentivizing counterproductive behavior, such as gaining weight before the start of a weight-loss competition, to make improvement and rewards easier to achieve.

• Right Measures. "Employers should expect to invest in wellness for several years before achieving a positive ROI, if at all. Employers looking to wellness as a quick fix for high health costs are those least likely to see positive returns, as they are also the least likely to have undertaken the measures to gain true employee engagement in health.” It’s disheartening to see how many companies initiate Lean Six Sigma (or other business improvement) programs for short-term financial goals and measure its success accordingly. They inevitably fail and conclude that the methodology didn’t work.

Any change in the fundamental health of an individual or a corporation requires long-term commitment and investment in people. What senior management needs to succeed in change is not another shortcut or quick fix. It is simple — Leadership.

Daniel Goleman, Author of Emotional Intelligence wrote, "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds."

After my brain quit hurting from reading this, I started to understand what he meant. So, I decided to take the quote and break it down into a leadership perspective. Here goes:

1) "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice" - I was in a meeting not long ago with some very high ranking individuals. In the blink of an eye, a well thought out decision made by a process improvement team was overturned. The high ranking individuals gave little reason. Basicially, they limited their thinking to what they "failed to notice." That a team of highly skilled people already came up with a good solution, which addressed the same concerns that they were citing. I have to wonder, how engaged will this team be once they go back to their normal work environments? How much extended damage did these, "leaders" just do by "failing to notice" someone else's hard work? Certainly, decisions need careful review by leadership. But, careful review and servant leadership models show that dialogue between leadership and the people who do the job should take place before overturning and disempowering a team. Only then will they believe that you care, and trust you as a leader.

2) "And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds." - The "leaders" in part one are not bad people. Nor do I consider them to be poor leaders necessarily. Having worked with them, I have come to understand the constraints on their time. I also understand that law enforcement, by its very nature, is a system known for quick decision making. In several instances, this can be a very good thing, as hesitation can get someone killed.

As the second sentence reads, they simply failed to notice what they failed to notice. Leaders sometimes do not recognize the impact of their decisions on the people that do the work, until long after they have made their decision, if ever. This equates to the beginning of, 'What were they thinking," by line personnel. After that, the shut down starts. Line personnel and middle managers quit offering ideas because they believe, "leadership" doesn't care about what I say anyway. Leadership then starts to believe people need constant guidance since they never offer solutions. Line personnel then start feeling micromanaged and disengage...it goes on and on and on, until you have a culture of followers. This happens until one day, a leader realizes that he "failed to notice" an important factor in his decision...input from the people that do the job. From then on, he becomes the people's advocate.

How much do your leaders,"fail to notice?" What is your organization doing to realign and prevent this from happening in the future? Do you have the courage to tell leaders that they are "failing to notice?" Someone's I can only ...Ponder.