<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</title>
		<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/RSS2.asp?action=full</link>
		<description>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2004-2009 iSixSigma</copyright>
		<managingEditor>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</webMaster>
		<generator>iSixSigma Blog 1.0.5</generator>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:40:30 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    	<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Religion Behind Mandated Leadership]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_religion_behind_mandated_leadership.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If there’s one thing I’ve noticed about the effect the current economy is having on businesses, it’s the polarization of Six Sigma. Programs have either been seen as the reverent coming of the messiah or the two-bit television evangelist that needs to be turned off and forgotten about. For those companies that feel they are struggling for airtime, discussions about revitalization and redeployment have been preached by change agents to the senior leadership team. One of the common beliefs in these sermons focuses on the mandate to promote only those with Six Sigma belt certifications into future leadership roles. The belief is if the converted are the ones in charge, the religion of Six Sigma will continue to be institutionalized within the fold. 
As a knight who chivalrously crusades to protect the reputation of Six Sigma, I have to tell you this belief is not a pragmatic approach to keep face time in the pulpit. First of all, the person in charge to drive the mandate is usually not someone in a Human Resources or Continuous Improvement role, but rather an executive leader, such as the CEO and as a result, the mandate becomes a function of the person (and not the program). I can think of several companies in the past that required future leaders to be at least Green Belt trained only to abandon the requirement when a new executive regime was put in place. What kind of message does this say about your Six Sigma program when two managers had to take different pathways to get to the same role? 
Rather, companies who want to maintain a strong process improvement mindset need to take a two pronged approach. First, there should be a requirement for leaders to have Six Sigma executive awareness training. The training could be similar to a Yellow Belt package but should also involve concepts such as Lean, Practical Problem Solving, ISO, etc. Keep in mind this mandate is different than requiring leaders to be a Green or Black Belt. Senior leadership needs to have understanding, appreciation and respect for the Six Sigma program. They also need in-depth coaching on their role as champions which is generally not taught in Green/Black Belt courses. 
The second part of the approach to revitalization is an assessment to ensure the employee is competent before moving into a leader role. Things to ask to determine a supportive future leader (as you would in a Six Sigma project) are:

Can the employee clearly describe problems, lead a scope of work to resolve them, and achieve results? 
Can the employee work as part of a team? 
Can the employee make sound decisions based of the effective analysis of fact based data? 
Is the work done by the employee sustainable and embedded within the company?
Being a in a Green or Black Belt role can answer these questions, however the mandate to require this designation is not a poke yoke substitution to a solid leadership competency assessment. If these competencies are truly the way a person works everyday, you know they are legitimate future leaders who will be receptive to a data driven problem solving approach (and not someone who is getting a certificate for a one off project they begrudgingly complete).  Also, companies may have other roles such as Lean Coaches, Project Managers who use the PrinceII methodology, etc. 
By creating a Six Sigma mandate to move ahead, resentment occurs invoking competition and before you know it, the organization has a quality jihad on its hands. 
Having a Six Sigma certification is a nice to have, however it does not guarantee you are a true believer nor does it guarantee to the organization someone with the insight of divine right has ascended to the leadership throne and will continue to preach a Six Sigma message. Revitalization can occur if the message is one of respect for complimenting initiatives. Belt mandates for leaders only lead to purgatory with future leaders tying pages of their Six Sigma manuals and certificates into ropes to climb into management heaven.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:14:13 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What Sigma Value is your Food?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_sigma_value_is_your_food.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It seems like a month can not go by without some large scale food recall, with the latest being approximately 31 million pounds of peanut butter (due to salmonella contamination). I started to wonder what the sigma level for the aforementioned peanut butter would look like. According to a major news website, at least 500 people had been affected by the contamination, definitely an error when listening to VoC.  Assuming 500 illnesses with a batch size of 31 million pounds, I get a sigma value of 5.66. Of course this assumes batch size is the right opportunity to count. 
When I teach Six Sigma, there is a slide explaining how sigma values are calculated followed by another slide with sample values for given industries.  An example of an industry with a 6 sigma plus rating is airline safety.  Most industries will operate around a 2-3 sigma value for a given process. An example of a process that typically operates around 3 sigma is the accuracy of restaurant bills. In other words, the process is 93.3% accurate or for every one million bills, or 66,800 will have an error.
So as a consumer, should I be happy with a food that currently has a value of 5.66 sigma?  Is the media overreacting? I decided to do some research.  I googled DPMO and food and after 14,000 hits, decided to narrow my search to the FDA website.  The first thing I saw was a listing of over one hundred foods affected by the recent recall. Now if I assume a batch size per product or per manufacturer my number of opportunities just decreased significantly, however without a firm number of defects provided by the manufacturer, it would be impossible for me to calculate DPMO on a given brand name product.  
I found my search proved better when I changed from DPMO to PPM (parts per million). It turns out the FDA has an entire handbook on what number of defects are acceptable for all foods.  For example, the FDA considers a maximum defect level of 2% or more for apricots harvested for canning that have been damaged or infected by insects as acceptable.  A 98.2% defect fee yield translates into a sigma value of around 3.6.  Okay, so the process is better than restaurant bill accuracy but I’m not sure as a consumer I’m happy with this value (good thing I don’t eat apricots). 
Looking at coffee beans, if a batch is less than 10% insect infested/damaged, it is considered acceptable. This translates into a sigma value of around 2.8.  So I have a higher quality level with baggage handling at the airport (around 4 sigma) than purchasing green coffee beans. As someone who’s had their bags incorrectly routed twice, the results are unsettling.
In addition, the FDA website lists multiple types of defects (mold, insects, contamination, etc.). This gives one the availability to calculate DPU for some foods. After viewing the website (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Edms/dalbook.html), I’m not any more worried about the peanut butter outbreak compared to any of the other foods I eat.  Product traceability has allowed companies to pinpoint the exact extent of risk involved with the peanut butter and recall any questionable product. Whereas with other foods you purchase, the threat for defect is still there; it just isn’t as widely publicised by the media. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:43:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma for the Office]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_for_the_office.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I love it when people in the office talk about what they can do to improve costs. Having said that, over the course of my career, I would say the majority of  Six Sigma office projects I’ve seen should’ve never been started in the first place.
Is there variation in the office? You bet.  Why is it one person can remember how to cancel a print job while the other waits for a novel to be printed before he realises he’s made a mistake? Why do you only need one pen when the person in the cube next to you needs eight to do the same job?
You, as many people I work with, would think the office atmosphere is ripe to reap the rewards of Six Sigma. I have seen projects geared to reduce office supplies, paper usage, color copies, shipping carriers, etc. You name it, I’ve probably seen it attempted to be done. And do you know what? The majority of the time, the projects fail. 
While the ideas have merit, it’s execution of piloting office projects that set the stage for failure. The fundamental rule of Six Sigma is to pick projects where the factors can be controlled.  When it comes to human nature in the office, it’s often very difficult to lock in changes unless you can error-proof the process (this puts the “Lean” in Lean Six Sigma).
For example, I remember a project to reduce shipment errors and costs by standardising with one company. Although the contract with the outgoing company was not renewed, its supplies were left in the mailroom only to have people continue to use them and the company charge a higher rate (because there was now no contracted discount).
Another example involved a project to reduce printing expenses.  Printers had their defaults changed to print black and white on both sides of the paper. Access to color copiers was restricted to only a few employees.  Announcements were even posted on copiers and printers.  Sounds like a success, right? Wrong. Although some of the modifications did initially post modest savings, they were offset by sales and marketing re-printing the double sided materials into a single sided format. Another issue arose when legitimate stakeholders did not have access to needed copiers. In addition to the rework involved to grant user access, a wave of discontent swept through the office.
This leads me to my next point. If you want an office project to succeed, you need to involve everyone working in the office. Any value you think you may save by standardising office supplies will be quickly lost in productivity by the individual making the rounds to whinge and moan about how he can’t write with the inferior pen that was 17 cents cheaper than the one he used to use.
Lastly, in order for an office project to be a success, an adequate control plan must be in place and communicated.  I’ve seen a project where a mini DOE on toner cartridges was conducted that clearly demonstrated the best product, only to have results overlooked because the person quit three months later and the supplier’s part number wasn’t uploaded into the ERP reorder system.
Controllable, error-proofed, customer focused and embedded. If your Six Sigma office project can’t use these words, then you may want to find another project.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:11:04 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Getting a Clue with Queuing Theory]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/getting_a_clue_with_queuing_theory.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I often find real world examples of process "improvements" staring me blatantly in the face.  For example, I stumbled upon queuing theory in action at the local movie theatre. 
Queuing theory is the study of how lines (or queues) are formed and dissipate over time.  Examples of queues are everywhere: traffic at an intersection, restaurant lines during the lunch hour rush, dialling into a call center, etc.  Queuing theory is a tool in the Lean Six Sigma toolkit. It aims reducing bottlenecks which contribute to time spent waiting in line (or in some cases, eliminating wait time completely).
Anyway, back to my experience at the move theatre…When I purchased tickets, I was asked if I wanted to sit in the front, middle, or back. I, like most of those attending the movie, chose the middle section. To my amazement, the ticket printed out an exact row and seat number (similar to what you would see on an airline ticket).As I took my seat, I saw how the rows in front of me and behind me suddenly filled up.
I can see where queuing theory could benefit the theatre from an efficiency and error proofing perspective.  The computer knows exactly how many seats have been allocated to what movie and where in the screening room; a process that can assist in reducing the chance people from sneaking in to see an additional movie.  In the movie I saw, occupied seating was concentrated to about 20% of the room, reducing clean up time for employees.
Although queuing might be efficient, is it always effective? In my case, the answer is no. Sure, I got to sit in the mid section as I requested. The saying “Be careful what you wish for” came to mind as I was surrounded in every imaginable direction by people. Given the option, I would have rather sat closer to (or even further away) from the screen if it meant I wasn’t breathing on top of the other movie goers. Further, if my husband and I had arrived a bit later and unknowingly requested middle seating, it is unlikely we would’ve been able to sit next to each other- a definite detractor of service. 
There are many applications where queuing has been successful such as automated computer screens which direct you to the next available bank clerk, checkout line, etc., however under these conditions most customers assume there won’t be a significant difference in their experience.  But when there are multiple factors critical to quality (or in this case customer satisfaction), foregoing the voice of the customer can actually decrease customer satisfaction.  The key here is being efficient and effective. A good Lean Six Sigma project will weigh voice of the customer or Kano analysis alongside forecasted cycle time improvements and determine what the net effect is prior to implementing a solution.  If customer dissatisfaction outweighs process improvements, then your customers, if given a choice, will be less likely to purchase your products or services. In my case, I think I’ll be selecting a different theatre next time. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:32:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Picking Fruit the Six Sigma Way]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/picking_fruit_the_six_sigma_way.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Any seasoned Lean Six Sigma professional can tell you about the fruit tree of quality.  At the bottom of the tree there is fruit festering on the ground which represents “just do it” kaizen and bare bones problem solving. As you move up the tree, you can begin to pick the low hanging fruit by utilising Lean tools with a sprinkling of Six Sigma. The middle of the tree signifies Six Sigma in its unadulterated form- this is where you break out the statistics and you can reap big savings as a result. Lastly, fruit residing in the top echelon of the tree can only be picked via robust design (i.e. Design for Six Sigma). 
Many of you (including myself) were involved in Six Sigma deployments that began nearly a decade ago.  In my case, the tree was there but the expectation was to use Six Sigma to harvest all of the fruit, with little regard to Lean or other quality methodologies.  Because there was so much fruit, Black Belts had high expectations for cumulative project values and in some instances projects could be completed within a matter of weeks.
In my case after about five years of utilizing Six Sigma, solutions had been implemented for many major problems and some within the organization were questioning the validity of continuing Black Belt roles on a full time basis. Robust projects utilizing trials and Design for Six Sigma work tended to take longer than the average Six Sigma project. Value for work was moving from black and white hard dollar savings to a more abstract value. 
Does any of this sound familiar to you? One of the key concerns for a mature Six Sigma organization is the point where it feels it is squeezing a lemon that’s out of juice.  If you feel this scenario applies to you, I’d like to recommend the following advice.

Complacency is not an option. The processes you have now, no matter the sigma level, will unlikely be considered competitive ten years from now (and this applies to everything from software system design to manufacturing processes). When you pick fruit, it can grow back and when this occurs, it is never quite identical to its predecessor. Most things change over time and with that mindset, Six Sigma can take a proactive (and not reactive) approach to problem solving. 
You don’t always have to pick the tree in an upward motion. Sure, it’s great to be a Black Belt who can claim a million dollar savings on a single project, however the more mature an organization is utilizing Six Sigma, the more elusive this type of fruit becomes.  Yes, you may still be able to find value, however you may have to look down the tree. This is especially true in organizations where Six Sigma was implemented prior to Lean Manufacturing. Rather than picking a single, large piece of fruit, you may need to pick several smaller ones to equal the rewards.  The projects can be grouped in a cluster around a common problem. You may also need to expand the traditional Six Sigma project team to include additional improvement practitioners from Lean and other disciplines such as capital.
Establish a cost pool to draw from. One of the tasks when defining a Six Sigma project is to estimate a financial value to justify the project. The ripest fruit in the middle of the tree is generally linked to hard value such as added production, reduction in headcount, etc. and can very easily be calculated.  Move in either direction and the value of the fruit becomes more abstract.  I have seen some corporations where these projects can be worked with a “soft savings” undertone, meaning there is an inherent value that is understood to be good for the business but may be difficult to quantify. However, if you work for a company that must show a financial impact to the bottom line, my recommendation is to establish a Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) or Cost of Non Conformance (CONC) metric. These metrics can be individual for department or a single value for the entire site.  Rather than focusing on how much a single project will achieve in value, the metric value can be tracked on a monthly basis to compare performance with the prior year’s costs.  For example, while working a project to reduce staff turnover may be difficult to financially validate (especially in a short timeframe), the work can feed into reducing COPQ costs for Human Resources which may include things such as relocation expense for new employees, costs for processing exit interviews, etc.
As I noted earlier, when you pick fruit off a tree, it can grow back. It may grow in a different location or may be slightly different in appearance, however it doesn’t necessarily mean prior Six Sigma work was unsuccessful. As a Six Sigma practitioner, your role is to continue picking the fruit. This may mean searching both up and down the tree. You may need to get others to help you collect it and you may also need to utilise additional tools for harvesting. You may even need to incorporate a new method to store its value. Just remember- as long as there is fruit on the tree of quality, there will always be a need for Six Sigma within organizations.

 
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 18:18:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Variance… Is it always a bad thing?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/variance_is_it_always_a_bad_thing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In Six Sigma we’re taught reducing variance is a good thing but is this really always the case?
Take currency for example. In the US all paper currency is the same size and the same color. By reducing variance I’m sure the US Mint has saved costs by having a standardized ink color, standardized cutting machines, etc. However, how does this benefit me as a user? When looking at a $5 and $10 bill twenty feet away, most people can not tell the difference. How many times have you had to thumb through your wallet to find the correct bill or worried you gave someone an incorrect note (or been accused of giving back incorrect change if you’ve been on the receiving end)?
Now compare the US currency with Australian currency. Each denomination of paper money is a slightly different size and color (note: while there are extra upfront costs to the process, they are greatly offset by reduced printing demand as the result of an applied plastic coating.).Essentially the country has error proofed (i.e. Lean manufacturing) its currency to the end user.
The point I’m trying to make is that sometimes in Six Sigma we focus so hard on reducing variance to cut costs that we overlook characteristics deemed critical to quality by the end user. Even though costs have been reduced, underlying problems still exist, leaving the customer to view the product service of sub par quality.  By introducing variance as a possible solution, one may be able greatly improve customer satisfaction.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:21:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma: The Laissez Faire of Politics]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_the_laissez_faire_of_politics.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As I’m reading the newspaper, I notice two articles from different countries, Australia and China, both about eliminating plastic bag usage in retail outlets by the end of 2008. The Australian article focused on the benefits and did provide a few statistics, such as the number of bags used annually, estimated % decrease of landfill occupancy, etc. When asked if the government had looked into any alternatives to improve the environment, such as adding a bag tax to reduce consumption, the response was along the lines of “no, because those ideas won’t work”.
You can imagine what has happened since this announcement has been made. Customers are beginning to hoard plastic bags. Retailers are scratching their heads for alternatives (and contemplating additional costs associated with those alternatives). Basically complete micro-chaos has erupted because of a politician’s quick rush to judgment without a plan. 
If there is one area in society that definitely needs an injection of Six Sigma, it’s politics.  Just like the working world of business, people want a silver bullet quick fix that sounds good and will make people feel good. Politicians often open their mouths without performing due diligence and as a result only partially address an issue.
Let’s look at the situation above to determine what went wrong from a Six Sigma perspective. The first step is to Define the problem.  “Plastic bags are bad” just doesn’t cut it. A more plausible definition would be something along the lines of “Country X uses Y plastic bags a year. By reducing or eliminating the number of plastic bags used, environmental problems x,y, and z will be improved.” 
Also, adding a scope would be nice. Are we looking at a viable alternative for plastic bags or do we want to reduce all forms of bag consumption? Do we want to look at non-recyclable plastic bags or will all plastics be considered?
Next, the problem must be Measured. The Australians have made a good start by citing bag consumption and environmental statistics, however quite a bit of information is missing from this phase.  What are the environmental repercussions from using an alternative such as a paper bag, cloth bag, plastic crate, etc.?
Measuring all encompassing data is essential for a successful Analyse phase, something the politicians have definitely left out.  What does the data tell us?  The answers should serve as the foundation for the Improve phase. In the article, the improvement plan is “to eliminate plastic bags by the end of 2008”, however no plan has been drafted on how to achieve this. Had the problem been more clearly defined and scoped, far greater leverage would have existed for improvement ideas. For example, if the word eliminate was replaced by the word reduce; I believe the target would be more realistic. 
If your project doesn’t have an improvement plan other than a government ultimatum, it’s going to be really difficult to get your problem under Control and managed. Will shopkeepers be fined for using plastic bags? Will retailers be able to meet the demands of the government by the end of the year? Will cargo ships be searched and bags quarantined? These questions may seem far fetched, however they prove a point- initiatives, even those backed by the government, are more likely to fail when not thought through.
The most concerning flaw I found with government solutions to plastic bag consumption is that often it does not take into account the voice of the customer.  While I believe most people are concerned to a degree about the environment, not having a plan to give customers viable options in a lieu of a plastic bag infringes on their freedom of choice. The “paper or plastic” question is virtually unheard of in Australia, even though paper bags are recyclable and can emit less greenhouse gasses when being produced. As a consumer, I would gladly pay a small bag tax to reduce usage, however the governments in question do not give me that option because “those ideas won’t work”. I would equate this to making project decision in the corporate world without including all key stakeholders in the department… and we know how that generally turns out.
In summary, if government leaders were to incorporate the Six Sigma methodology into decision making, key initiatives would be better defined, all relevant data would be analysed, and implementation of change would have less unanswered questions because the voice of the customer would be listened to.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Government]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:13:45 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Speeding Cameras: A Zero Sum Gain in the World of Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/speeding_cameras_a_zero_sum_gain_in_the_world_of_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I’m driving home from work yesterday and I noticed something different at the intersection by my house. A traffic camera has been installed just in time to give some people a not so merry Christmas present.
Traffic cameras, such as the one I saw, have been introduced as a visual control with the intent to improve safety. Reducing the amount of defects (in this case, an accident) sounds like a worthy Six Sigma project. In fact, studies have shown when placed at intersections, cameras can reduce the chance of drivers’ running a red light. Unfortunately, those same studies also concluded cameras contribute to a higher number of rear ending accidents.
Good intentions are not enough when defining a Six Sigma project. A key question when scoping a project should be “What are the primary and secondary metrics?” Most of us are familiar with a primary metric, a general measurement of how we will deem the project successful.  This could be cycle time, throughput rate, added revenue, etc. However, for most projects, secondary metrics are just as important. The secondary metric serves as a “check and balance” to ensure your project has not created problems somewhere else in the process. For example, a project may reduce claim processing time in a certain department but creates additional work in the preceding department, resulting in an increase in the overall processing time (and thus defeating the point of the project). A key manufacturing example is ensuring production throughput increases (primary metric) without increasing the overall scrap rate (secondary metric).
The next time you are defining a Six Sigma project, remember traffic cameras. After all, you don’t want to complete a project to have a zero sum gain in the end.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:38:55 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Voice of the Customer- Is it Heard in Retail?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voice_of_the_customer_is_it_heard_in_retail.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Black Friday came and went and I avoided shopping for a number of reasons, mainly because I couldn’t be stuffed getting up early enough to get a great deal. Besides, knowing my luck, anything on my list would’ve sold out long before I arrived.
Unfortunately Christmas has not been the only time I’ve shopped only to find empty shelves or a product on backorder (when shopping online). What surprises me is that a large number of these retailers tout themselves as using Six Sigma. When you combine this with sophisticated inventory reordering systems (Lean supermarket pull systems), I sometimes question if the voice of the customer is heard or is just being ignored.
For example, there is a particular chain I try to purchase laundry detergent from. I say try because 80% of the time the shelves are empty. Sure, one could attribute the deficiency to lack of employees, shipment delay, etc.- all of which could be improved using Lean Six Sigma methodologies.  But if the product is out of stock, the retailer knows I’m likely to continue with the rest of my purchases and will likely return (and increasing the likelihood I’ll continue to purchase more).
It seems to me problems such as the example above could be easily solved. So why do some retailers continually have unavailable items (even when not on sale)? Is there a conspiracy theory in retail to sucker the customer into coming back (and spending more than planned)? If you work in retail, I’d love to know your thoughts on this. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:24:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Enabling Projects- Enabling Six Sigma Success]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/enabling_projects_enabling_six_sigma_success.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Most Six Sigma speak I’ve heard tries to categorize projects into “hard” vs. “soft” savings. Hard savings projects focus on cutting costs, increasing capacity, etc., while soft savings projects generally deal more with topics where dollar value may not be easily to quantify (e.g. environmental performance, employee morale, etc.). 
However, there is another type of project emphasis that often gets overlooked. I’m speaking of enabler projects.  I always tell people that Six Sigma is not about saving the world but rather taking pieces of a problem and solving it in smaller manageable chunks.  For a great number of technical projects I have been mentoring lately, I’ve noticed enabling projects are needed before the hard savings work can be scoped and completed.
An enabling project can focus on needs such as measurement systems, pre trial screening work (if your project is very complex and will require evolutionary operations, DOE, etc.), and control studies.  The enabling project in itself could be a stand alone Six Sigma project, depending on if a known solution exists for the problem.  For example, Company X may have been sighted by a regulatory agency. The company knows it has a problem and is looking to Six Sigma, however no measurement system is in place or is defined. It is very difficult to “check” your measurement system in Measure phase when you don’t have one or know the ongoing extent of when defining your problem in Define phase.
The benefit to an enabling project is it reduces the chances of having roadblocks when you get to the point of doing improvement work on your key Six Sigma project. Another benefit is for those who work in a culture where there is a strong push to have projects expediently completed, you can get some of the work done in advance (and the time won’t be counted against your project).]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:22:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Why Projects Fail]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/why_projects_fail.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My last article discussed the importance of verifying the sustainability of project work.  Although there are many positives to living in a Six Sigma world, it does have a dark side- failed project audits.
My experience, dependent on my employer at the time, has been that anywhere from 10-50% of projects are not embedded into an organization’s culture at the time of a 12 month audit.
So why do projects fail? I’m sure there are countless articles and statistical analysis performed on this issue, however here are my thoughts…

Change in Key Stakeholder Role. A new Project Champion, Process Owner, etc. moves into the role. Unless solid communication has been made, the value of the project can be ignored or unseen. Also, new blood may mean an absence of Six Sigma training, and as a result, the stakeholder may be oblivious as to what his/her responsibilities are in supporting the aftermath of a project implementation.
Poor Project Definition/ Scope of Project.  I’ve seen people try to save the world on certain projects, rather than breaking problems down into manageable “chunks”. Other projects have had their definition scope change and as a result the expectation of what the project will focus on/ deliver gets mis-communicated among staff, often resulting in a myriad of expectations for results that are often unachievable. 
Targets are too Ambitious.  Again with the comment regarding saving the world. I think sometimes people get pressured into thinking they have to save “x” dollars every time they do a project and truly don’t due their due diligence when estimating the return on a project. If your employer has a set minimum amount of return for a project and you initially think you can’t achieve it, then it might not necessarily be the best Six Sigma project.
Project not Linked to Plan.  Especially when training new Black and Green Belts, I’ve seen what I call “feel good” projects. The belt feels good because he/she has come up with a good problem to solve. However, if that problem is not linked to a gap existing between the company plan, metrics, mission statement, etc. and the current state, then it may be hard to garner long term support of embedding any long term improvement work (combined with a role change this can be the kiss of death).
One final note- I have never seen a project fail because the wrong statistical tool was used. Although statistics are important, it’s generally people and their behaviors that will make or break the success of a project. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:01:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: ”V”… The importance of Verifying Projects]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/v_the_importance_of_verifying_projects.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Most of us are familiar with the DMAIC approach to Six Sigma.  But what happens after control phase is completed? The answer is verification. A lot of hard work has gone into the project and as a project leader you need to be able to walk away from an improvement that is embedded and is meeting its target(s). Here are my thoughts on verifying a Six Sigma project…

Have a primary 3 or 6 month audit, with a 12 month audit serving as a secondary, follow-up audit. The early audit will tell you if project work has been embedded into the organization. The later audit can be used to verify maintainability and if financial targets were achieved. 
Audits should not be conducted by someone directly involved with the project, or employees in the department where the project was implemented. It creates too much inherent bias. 
Project metrics should be evaluated in terms of baseline (before project began), target values, and achieved results. Note: in a 3 or 6 month audit, it may be impractical to look at NPV, ROI, and other financial indicators. Additionally project costs should be factored into financial results. 
Additional detail such as project cycle time, project handover and lessons learned should be discussed. 
The audit should obtain feedback from those impacted about the project’s stability, functionality, and relation to any key planning measures (e.g. safety, maintenance, etc.) 
Once the audit is completed (including any action items noted and references on who/ where information was obtained from), a summary should be shared with stakeholders. 
I like to classify audit findings into one of four categories: Pass, Systems not Embedded but Targets Met, Targets Met but Systems not Embedded, and Targets not met and Systems not Embedded. For audits that do not pass, stakeholders should have consensus about the rating prior to the audit’s final publishing.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:19:13 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Does Size Matter?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/does_size_matter.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[All too often we hear the accolades of Six Sigma being utilized in a large (and often publicly traded) companies. In recent years the DMAIC methodology has been spread into smaller health care organizations, government, and even some school districts. However it seems there is a vast under-representation of Six Sigma in small companies and private firms, when compared to larger counterparts. When is the last time you heard of a private equity firm or a small business celebrating Six Sigma success?
When you’re a billion dollar company there is almost a sexiness to the sound of telling shareholders how many tens of millions of dollars Six Sigma projects have added to the bottom line. Having formal in house trainers and support in the form of Master Black Belts, statistical software packages, and completely committed Black Belts also doesn’t hurt.
My advice is that a smaller company should not believe a Six Sigma infrastructure is an unattainable goal. Rather, the structure and elements of deployment may need to be altered a bit from traditional big business models.
Examples of alteration can include assigning multiple roles to a position (ex. Quality Manager can be also considered Master Black Belt) and utilizing existing resources, such as the analysis and equation solver tool packs in Microsoft Excel (as opposed to buying additional software). Metrics to measure success can be tailored as well. By measuring Six Sigma value in terms of a percentage of revenue, profitability, new business opportunities, etc. the success will be more understandable and meaningful than just stating how much money was saved. 
So does size matter when it comes to having a successful Six Sigma culture? In my opinion the answer is no; you just have to be a bit more creative.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:59:44 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Six Sigma Forum-Malaysia]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_six_sigma_forum_malaysia.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For those of you practising Lean Six Sigma in the Austral Oceania region of the world, IQPC will be hosting a Lean Six Sigma Forum from November 27-29 at the Prince Hotel in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Confirmed speakers include:

Quality Director- Reuters 
Senior Manager Business Enterprise- Motorola 
Quality/Operational Excellence Leader-GE Plastics 
Director, Six Sigma- Ingram Micro 
Vice President of Six Sigma- Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme 
Vice President Operations Australia-Asia- ALCOA 
Six Sigma Manager-BHP Billiton 
EMEA Quality Manager Global Business Operations-Hewlett Packard]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Conferences]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:51:26 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: VOC for Six Sigma Satisfaction]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voc_for_six_sigma_satisfaction.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Understanding the VOC: Six Sigma Belt Satisfaction
Often Six Sigma focuses on the voice of the customer in terms of a public consumer or end business user/department.  Yet how many times does leadership consider Six Sigma Black and Green Belts as a customer within the Six Sigma organization?
In order to successfully train and retain your change agents, a company must listen to their voice. While there are many methods to obtain feedback, a preferred method of mine is a satisfaction survey.
You can choose multiple opportunities to deploy the survey: during each phase of training, after completion of first project, on a yearly basis at a set time… the timing is a function of your organization’s culture and needs.
While I have come across some great survey templates, I still have had to tweak them for my needs. As for question content, there are several topics that I think would apply to most Six Sigma organizations.

Level of support from Process Owners, Deployment Champions, Managers, and Master Black Belts. Support can be broken down into technical, administrative, and general mentoring. Also, asking questions relating to approachability for the people mentioned above. 
Employee understanding of how Six Sigma is aligned and integrated with other quality initiatives (such as CMMI, Lean, etc.) and with company’s business plan. 
Time given to complete projects (crucial for Green Belts and others who may not being working Six Sigma projects in a full time role). 
Training/Retraining feedback and requests in terms of understanding, usability, and value. 
Understanding of audit process (if your company has one) for projects. 
Clarity of the role (i.e. the role was what was expected to be). 
Likelihood to refer the program.
Depending on the size of your organization, you may be able to drill down further and ask classification questions, such as belt type, training wave, number of projects completed, tenure with company and in role, etc.  This information may further help segregate the voice of distinct customer groups.
You may encounter a naysayer who will point to metrics where project value has been achieved and argue that a survey is not needed. After all, if you’re achieving financial targets and improving the business, then your Six Sigma agents must be happy with the work they’re doing, right?  Although business results may be achieved in the short term, this complacency mentality will cause the program to eventually fail. By listening to its inner voice, a sustainable Six Sigma initiative truly does “practice what it preaches” and only further commits to a culture of continuous improvement.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:00:03 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: NPS * Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/nps__six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently I had the opportunity to attend the IQPC Australasia Six Sigma summit.  For me, the highlight of the event was a presentation given by GE. The presentation focused around how the company was taking the voice of the customer to the next level by aligning NPS (Net Promoter Score) methodology with Six Sigma.
NPS is generally incorporated into a satisfaction survey and revolves around one question.  End users (customers) are asked how likely they are to refer something, such as a product or service, to a friend or colleague. Generally the question is asked using a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning very unlikely to recommend and 10 meaning highly likely to recommend, Ratings are classified into three categories:

9-10 (promoters)
7-8 (neutral)
0-6 (detractors)
According to the presentation, promoters are likely to promote your product or service, neutrals will not say anything, and detracts are likely to speak negatively at a rate of three times more than what the promoters will say.
I’m currently incorporating NPS technique into a Six Sigma survey for Black and Green Belts within my organization. I’m doing this because I believe that a successful Six Sigma program is not only about improvements and value added to the company but also sustainability. Ideally, a team of promoters would be great, however, if the current team is primarily made up of neutrals or detractors, then the recruitment and retention of future belts may be in jeopardy. I would encourage all Master Black Belts and deployment leaders to use NPS when determining satisfaction with your Six Sigma program. 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:10:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Good vs. Great Black Belts]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/good_vs_great_black_belts.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a prior post I reflected on desirable attributes for a Black Belt. After mentoring numerous Black Belts I can tell you what makes a good one, however I am wondering if one can statistically quantify a good vs. great belt.
Sure, there are tons of metrics that can be used to measure a belt:  hard project savings, time to complete project, project audit success rate, etc.; yet factors such as department, input in project selection, and project team members often make it hard for an “apples to apples” comparison of two Black Belts.
There is the perception from some of my fellow colleagues that great Black Belts are the ones who go on to management and leadership positions, however the basic law of supply and demand for human capital in the workforce makes me think that perception isn’t always true.
Another belief I’ve heard is that great Black Belts are those who can stay in their role for at least two years which gives the implication that good Black Belts are likely to be more easily discouraged and seek other opportunities sooner. Again, I find fault with this logic due to supply and demand. In fact, one could just as easily argue the opposite- great Black Belts are in their positions less than good ones because their talent is more recognized and they are easier to transition into another job. 
Aside from comparison of performance review ratings (which would only work under identical management), I’m at a loss and am beginning to think that it may be statistically impossible to quantify Black Belts in terms of good vs. great. I would love to hear from other mentors, especially those involved in Human Resources, as to how one can truly quantify this measurement. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:07:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Pay for Skills Project-Control Update]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/pay_for_skills_project_control_update.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Update on Pay for Skills
A while back I wrote about a Six Sigma project that focused on implementing a pay for skills initiative. I am happy to say the project has passed through control phase and is currently institutionalized.
Validating cross training employees created savings was a little difficult at first.   Sure, there were tons of soft savings. Employee satisfaction survey scores increased. The production schedule remained on plan more frequently than it did before. Retention increased with zero turnover in production during the six month control period. On time product shipment metrics improved.
At first I thought about using amount of overtime worked as a metric, however when the project initially went into control phase the company encountered the slow period of its yearly cyclical cycle. Differentiating a natural slowdown vs. improved efficiency driving reduced overtime would be a daunting task that may not receive buy in from all stakeholders. I ran into the same obstacle when looking at using revenue dollars per employee as a hard savings metric.
I thought using a labor efficiency metric would capture hard savings. Because of the cross training there was less dependence on key individuals who had previously known how to operate only one or two machines. Wait times for machine changeovers were significantly reduced and production time better adhered to planning with the end effect being a consistent improvement of approximately 10% in labor efficiency.  However with improvements made and cyclical capacity increasing, I now had too many people.  Plus I had to contend with the additional labor costs that resulted from adding additional salary bands for skillsets.
 You may be saying “This is a no brainer.  You have excess employees. Have a layoff to achieve hard savings.” Yet executive management had made promises to employees that there would be no lay-offs so another option was crossed off the list.
When I was just about to run out of ideas, I made a final stop to visit the sales department. I was hoping the increase in efficiency could somehow translate into better profit margins. It just so happened that sales was on the brink of postponing a quote to distribute a developmental product line to a large customer because of concerns about production capacity and time to market.
When I shared production trending data along with forecasted production capacity for the proposed delivery dates, the quote was submitted and the business was acquired. In the span of a very short time, I had gone from having too many people to saving the company the equivalent of hiring six full time employees and filling any excess capacity indefinitely.
Throughout my pay for skills journey, I learned several lessons. Transactional projects can be just as successful as technical Six Sigma projects, although hard savings may take time to document. If you make a promise to employees, you must keep it even if it impacts your savings results, otherwise you will lose all credibility and never get support on any future projects. Lastly, even though I focused my initiatives towards production, other departments outside the initial scope of the project may provide the pot of gold at the end of your Six Sigma rainbow.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:35:02 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma and Standardization]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_and_standardization.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While travelling on an international flight earlier this year, I was asked to fill out forms for customs. After filling out the forms I proceeded to wait in line where fellow travellers in front of me delayed processing time because of a simple data entry error on their customs card. Apparently 1/11/07 is read as a date of November 1st in some countries while interpreted as January 11th in others. I estimated this simple lost in translation issue made me wait an additional 15 minutes in line and caused rework of five to six forms.
As I continued my travel I realized additional differences. People walked and drove on the left side (and not the right). The streets were only painted with white indicators as opposed to white and yellow paint used in the US. Riding in the back seat of the taxi cab was considered inappropriate as was tipping. Familiar measurements in pounds, miles, and Fahrenheit were replaced with kilograms, kilometres, and Celsius.
The experience made me trigger a debate with my husband. Could standardization be considered a key tool in Six Sigma? I’ll admit standardization would’ve certainly helped my trip in multiple ways. Aside from the lost wait time in airport customs (due to defective forms), I encountered rework from walking (and briefly driving) the wrong way. Time was lost and I’m sure errors were made doing conversions from metric to imperial.
Standardization definitely has its benefits as a Six Sigma tool when it comes to black and white data, such as measurement systems. I remember reading a few years ago where a company has a major operation fail because a key calculation was performed in metric while all other measurements were done in imperial. The failure cost the company millions of dollars. Creating a standardized system would serve as a poke yoke tool to effectively eliminate conversion calculation errors.
Standardization could also be seen as a method to improve efficiencies in processes that have great variation. For example, during my last trip, I visited four airports- each of which had their own process for security screening. While the majority of the process was the same for each airport, subtle differences, such as when to remove shoes and show identification, often confused travellers and created delays. 
There were a few examples that I could think of where standardization could’ve been of little value in a Six Sigma application. For example, it would be hard for me to make a standardization case of where to sit in a taxi. One may be able to do a correlation analysis comparing seat location to customer satisfaction but at the end of the day where I sat in the taxi bore no black and white effect on the travelling process, nor did it create rework by me having to change seats. Aside from feeling a bit embarrassed after the ride to have learned I should’ve sat in the front, standardization would have not made a significant difference.
In summary, there are many applications where standardization can be a very positive Six Sigma aide. Standardizing measurement systems and creating standard operating procedures are two examples of initiatives that can greatly reduce defects. However standardization is not the answer to creating a poke yoke world. There will always be a debateable gray area such as the optimum location of a steering wheel in a car (left or right side) the best seat in a taxi, etc., that standardization may not improve. Tools such as voice of the customer analysis are more suitable for examples such as the ones above. However, this leads to another debate- How does Six Sigma balance voice of the customer when the customer requests variety, (the exact opposite of standardization) which could lead to variance (and defects)? 
The debate will be continued in a future blog entry.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 01:28:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Maintaining Momentum]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/maintaining_momentum.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It’s the holiday season and that means one thing: shopping! This is the one time of year where I will seriously shop, making my seasonal impulsive buys and spending money on items such as clothing, candy, electronics, etc. that I rarely buy throughout any other time of the year. Evidently, I am not alone in my yearly ritual. I saw on the news where many retail businesses accrue 40%-60% of their sales from the period known as “Black Friday” to Christmas. But what if every month was like Christmas for retailers? Imagine an environment with driven customers continuously buying month after month with enthusiasm.
For some companies, Six Sigma is much like the holiday shopping season. There is a period in the company where everyone is attentive, motivated and excited. However some companies inevitably face the equivalent of a retailer’s January. So how does this loss of momentum occur? There are many reasons depending on the type of company and it’s culture. Rather than focusing on the root cause, which may be something that can not be controlled, I’d like to focus on some ideas that can help you maintain Six Sigma momentum in your organization.

PR goes a long way. The extroverted functions of your Six Sigma role shouldn’t be limited to a cheerleader or coach. In order to maintain momentum, you must become a communications and public relations expert. Does your company have a newsletter? An intranet? An annual report? These are all good examples of media tools you can use to promote Six Sigma.  A former employer published a daily newsletter called "Table Talk" which was placed on tables in the break rooms. Every issue would have either a Lean or Six Sigma definition, along with periodic updates on projects.
Take a "field trip".  And you thought field trips were only for kids! Seriously, if you can, corral your Six Sigma troops, along with key management players and arrange a tour of an organization that practices Six Sigma.  This allows management to see how other companies are successful through Six Sigma and innovates the Six Sigma practitioners by showing them new applications for tools they are familiar with (Many professional societies arrange these tours as part of their meeting agendas).
Make friends with investor relations.  If you work for a publicly traded company, your investor relations department could be one of your best friends.  Large corporations routinely speak at investor conferences. Helping the presenter(s) of these conferences prepare presentations with a Six Sigma flavor helps to maintain momentum not only internally but externally as well. Adding information to the company’s annual report such as project savings, commitment to quality initiatives, etc. will further spark interest among shareholders.
Numbers, Numbers, Numbers.  If you’re practicing Six Sigma then your company surely has some form of metrics, dashboards, balanced scorecards, etc.  These are great pieces of information to let the company know where it’s going,  but does it tell you why or how the company is improving? Adding a descriptive caption to a metric’s  graph where a major Six Sigma project was begun, implemented, and sustained reminds others of the importance (and effectiveness) of these projects. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:17:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What Makes a Great  Black Belt?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_makes_a_great_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently attended my graduation ceremony for an Advanced Manufacturing Specialist certification in Kansas City.  With Six Sigma methodology being a key component of the certification, I began to listen to the keynote speaker elaborate on the many projects and cost savings achieved by the seventy class graduates.
As I reflected over the last year and the work that went into my projects, I started envisioning my classmates giving their final project presentations.  I remembered how the class started out large but over the months of the year grew smaller and smaller.  At this same time I was reading the book Good to Great which quantifies and categorizes similar attributes shared by leaders of great companies. I then began to ponder…. What makes a great Black Belt? Based off of my classroom experience I have come up with the following conclusions:
Prior education does not matter. Passion for learning drives success.
I remember a former employer of mine had a cookie cutter mindset when it came to Six Sigma and one of its “suggestions” when inquiring about becoming a Black Belt was that you shouldn’t inquire unless you have a technical degree.  Throughout my year of classes I saw the engineers drop out just as fast as those with non technical degrees (or no degree at all) and while the reasons may be different the end result is the same- lack of follow through. In order to be a great Black Belt, you must have a passion for learning and want to learn process improvement techniques. 
Black Belts must “know the flow”
By the time the final class rolled around I will admit my peers had polished their presentation skills through the facilitation sessions offered in the certification, however no classroom could prepare them for the Q&amp;A session to follow.  The one thing that stuck out amongst the great Black Belts during this session was they knew their companies inside and out. I was impressed to hear how a   Black Belt working on a project in R&amp;D had the foresight to take into consideration accounting costing concerns and production manufacturability constrains- both of which are departments he does not work in. Another Black Belt working in healthcare talked about the effects her project had on both patients and insurers even though her performance review was based solely on patient satisfaction. A great Black Belt must look beyond the scope of his or her department and see the big picture in terms of a company’s operations.
Organize! Prioritize! Strategize!
As if taking six weeks out of my work schedule wasn’t time consuming enough, I was inundated with a multitude of templates, graphs, spreadsheets, etc. that were required for project documentation. If you’re gong to call yourself a great Black Belt, you may as well add “Great Project Manager” to the title. In addition to knowing the business a great Black Belt must know how to document it in a fact based approach while juggling the umpteen other requirements with work and family.  Black Belts I considered class models were those who could strategize their approach to getting project buy in and tollgate buy off, prioritize their D-M-A-I-C tasks with the rest of their responsibilities and organize their work and results in a clear and concise presentation. 
There’s no “I” in Team, Co-worker, or Group
Just when you’re out of school and you think you will never have to perform a group homework assignment, the real world sets in and you become employed working for the group. Six Sigma is no exception. Although “Black Belt” is a singular title one in this profession must learn to be humble and throw the title out the window when working with the general masses.  The great Black Belts from class were those who worked as facilitators within departments, shifts, etc at their employer. Working with diverse people from diverse departments is a must when it comes to strategizing and knowing the flow of the business. While a goal for a project may be clear, co-workers may choose different roads for reaching the goal. The great Black Belts are those who make sure everyone runs in the same direction towards the goal without tripping over their feet. 
Black Belts must be communicators 
By the time the class started discussing requirements for the final project I bet I could tell you every classmate’s employer, their job position, the opportunities, and their challenges faced. With the exception of their employer, none of this information was required to be presented for the class but rather communicated informally through class breaks, luncheons, etc.  I’m not saying a great Black Belt must be come from the sales department or be a network guru, but the communication must be there. Most projects regardless of size will require you to work with others and if you can’t communicate in a clear, concise, and comfortable manner, your projects won’t make it past the first tollgate. Communication also fosters relationship building and the great Black Belts capitalized on this in class by inserting small talk- often about things not even relating to Six Sigma.  I’m not saying you have to act like you’re in high school  but even the occasional smile and hello in the hallway will definitely win you a sense of approachability  with your peers. 
I’m sure there are additional attributes that could be added if I had more time (and maybe a book deal!).  Although this study is not scientific and is based upon personal observation, all students who, in my mind, met these criteria carried out successful Six Sigma projects resulting in everything from saving money to saving jobs. 
Next topic: Can you Quantify a Good vs. a Great Black Belt?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:21:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma for the Holidays?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_for_the_holidays.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As I drove home this afternoon, I noticed workers attaching Christmas wreaths to the local real estate office. Call me crazy but I think it’s way too early to be adding snowmen and Santa to the landscaping. I mean it’s not even Halloween yet! Not to show my age or anything but I can remember when Christmas attire was not commercially displayed until immediately after Thanksgiving. However the times have changed, for I have seen merchandise in stores as early as July this year.
I’m not in the retail field but I wonder... are these initiatives to prolong the magical shopping season a true improvement to the whole retail process? Are consumers likely to spend more the longer items are on the shelf or is the same amount spent but in months and not weeks nowadays? How does carrying the extra inventory offset any bottom line savings for expediting the goods to market?  Are customers less likely to return gifts the earlier they buy them in the season? It would be interesting to look at buying patterns over the last 30 years to see the variance in days of when product is first put on the shelf until the actual holiday itself. It would be even more interesting to see if it makes significant difference in sales. Lastly I’m wondering what Six Sigma methodologies could be used to justify these actions. If you work in retail, I’d love to hear from you as it seems there is great opportunity for integrating Six Sigma into the holiday season.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:30:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Pay for Skills]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/pay_for_skills.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Implementing -Pay for Skills
I recently led an initiative to implement a pay for performance structure within my employer’s Production department. While management unanimously believed the idea was excellent, I was challenged as to whether or not this constituted a Six Sigma project.  “I though Six Sigma was about reducing costs. This project looks like it will increase our labor costs so it can’t be related to Six Sigma,” was the response I received from one manager. “But wait- are the costs to cross train a department less than the costs to recruit, hire, and train a new employee to perform a specific task?” asked the Human Resources manager. The challenge had started.
Establishing a cross training or pay for skills program has a lot of soft and hard benefits- improved employee satisfaction, better job coverage, greater employee retention through a more rewarding career with more opportunity for advancement,  reduced scrap and reduced down time to name a few. However, there are additional training costs that must be incurred. Do those costs and benefits outweigh new hire costs?  How can this be sold as a Six Sigma project? Listed below is my approach thus far:
DefineIn the define phase I stated some problems that production had over the prior year due to a lack of employees trained on certain machines and certain products. When unplanned absences or fully absorbed production capacity occurred the plant saw machine downtime, missed orders, and scrap product attributed to operator error.  I was able to put a dollar amount to occurrences and make a compelling case that by implementing a pay for skills program these occurrences would decrease in the future and any additional labor costs would be negated by improved quality. 
MeasureThere was a lot of data involved with this project. I looked at employee attendance records for the prior year, scrap rates, equipment downtimes (and root causes), missed orders and production schedules attributed to capacity causes, and customer returns attributed to human product quality.  AnalyzeI used several different tools. When looking at equipment downtimes, I did a Pareto by machine downtime as a % of overall run time and looked for the top machines that were down and then did a root cause Pareto for each machine. I used a regression analysis to determine what impact attendance had on missed production schedules and order shipments, given most employees were trained on very few tasks without backup coverage. 
ImproveBased on product and machine usage data, I worked with Human Resources to establish two job classifications in the fabrication department and three classifications in the electronics/assembly departments. The classifications were based on difficulty of machines, complexity of product, administrative responsibilities such as order paperwork, and safety risk. The headcount in each classification was determined by estimated product or machine capacity with a normal distribution graph of capacity used.  Formal work instructions were created for each piece of machinery and each mass produced item and training was conducted. Additionally employees were given copies of their new job descriptions and understand their responsibilities in their new cross functional work environments. 
ControlSince the pay for skills initiative was only recently implemented I am currently in the control phase. Tune in to a future blog entry to see my progress.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:04:52 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: About Blogger: Holly Hawkins]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/about_blogger_holly_hawkins.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins  Principal-Business Improvement
Holly Hawkins serves as Principal for a large multinational natural resources company and currently resides in Brisbane, Australia.  Prior to her current role, she has worked in various continuous improvement management positions within the manufacturing industry in the United States.  
Holly has been a practicing Black Belt since 2001 and was originally certified through her former employer, ABB. She was recently certified in 2005 as an Advanced Manufacturing Specialist, which focuses on Lean, Six Sigma, and ISO methodologies. In 2007, Holly received TS16949 auditor accreditation. Additionally Holly has served on the board of examiners for the Missouri Quality Award.
Holly obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla and also holds an MBA-emphasis in Finance from the University of Missouri-St. Louis. 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Blogger Bios]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:03:10 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

	</channel>
</rss>
