<?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 15:35:20 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    	<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Spoonful of Sugar]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_spoonful_of_sugar.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've been thinking a lot lately about resistance to change.  The Rogers Adoption / Innovation curve (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards) is referenced in some form by most people involved in change management.
Now, I'm not an innovator myself.  My special form of creativity doesn't manifest itself by coming up with new ideas that no one else has thought of, or completely new ways to do things.  I'd tag myself as being in the early adopter or maybe early majority categories most of the time.
So it can be a stretch for me to work with the late majority or laggards.  "Don't you know this will be good for you?" I ask incredulously.  "Can't you see all the benefits and advantages that you will have once you've made this change?"  I confess that I get very impatient sometimes.
Fortunately I have great team members that a) calm me down and prevent me from sending career-limiting emails, and b) remind me that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Or, as the movie musical "Mary Poppins" character sings, "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."
(Of course, as she's singing that, she's snapping her fingers and making the children's clothes go back into the drawers without any effort on anyone's part.)
But in the real world, it's good to ask ourselves what's in it for the stakeholders, and try to see what would make the change more palatable.  The trick is, it has to been seen as a value-added return even before the gains are realized.  For example, a promise that the work will be easier might not be believed, even if you know it will be true.
Have you found a good way to engage stakeholders who might need a little extra encouragement to buy into a change plan?  It would be most helpful if you would share your experiences!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:20:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: With Thanks]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/with_thanks.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I had a very nice phone call today, from a colleague who had chatted with me earlier about a current project.  She called to say thanks for allowing her to bounce ideas around, which helped her clarify some things about her approach to the process.
Naturally I felt good to receive this feedback, and it made me think about my many associates who are in the process improvement community with me.  Sometimes it feels like skiing downhill, but sometimes it feels like I'm trying to go uphill without the ski lift.  It's during the tough times that I really rely on my fellow improvers to help me see a clear direction.
My colleague said that she had felt lost in the trees and confused about the path out of the forest.  I know I've felt like that sometimes too, and I told her that I'd probably be calling her soon so she could return the favor!
And, it reminded me to say a heartfelt "thanks" to the many people who have helped me to see more clearly when my own path seemed confused.
And also to say a sincere "thank you" to those of you who have read, and contributed to, this blog over the past three years.  It's hard to believe that this will be my 100th post, which milestone I would not have reached without your continuing support and responses!  I hope that you will keep on giving me your feedback - your conversations have been spirited, inspiring, generous, truthful, and above all educational!
With thanks for your time, your sharing of feedback with the iSixSigma blogosphere, and your efforts on behalf of your customers,
 Sue K.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:19:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Fourth Musketeer]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_fourth_musketeer.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA["One of all and all for one!"
Or, in the original French, "Tous pour un, un pour tous!"
In the story by Alexandre Dumas (1844), the three musketeers, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, were joined by the musketeer-wannabee D'Artagnan, without whom the first three would have led very boring lives.
I was reminded of this the other day, when discussing the elements of a successful process improvement deployment.  You will recognize the top three that were mentioned: focus on the customer; front-line engagement; structured methodology.  I'm going to submit to you that the concept of the Three Musketeers can serve as a metaphor for those three.  And, then, add the fourth (which you have already thought of anyway), which is committed leadership - without which, you will not be having many grand adventures in improvement.
So in your improvement experience, how many times have you gone into a project doing an assessment for these four issues - whether the organization knows how to focus on the customer effectively, or not?  Whether they treat their front-line workers as knowledge resources and Subject Matter Experts, or not?  Whether they have, or are willing to adopt, a structured methodology and all that is implied?  And, perhaps most importantly, whether the leadership is truly engaged and committed to process improvement as a way of life - or whether they just think it's the next best thing to try?  And, are these four elements integrated so that they can proclaim "One for all, and all for one?"
Please share your thoughts on this.  How many Musketeers do you have, where you work???]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:07:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: It's a &quot;Circle of Life&quot; Thing!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/its_a_circle_of_life_thing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I used to be really annoyed with people who took a wait-and-see approach to change.  They're not resistant, exactly, and they might be classified as "late adopters."  But I could understand active resistance better than passive indifference.
Now, however, I have a little different take on things.  Because I have realized that if you wait long enough, you may find that whatever was changed comes back around again!
Such as... 

Centralization vs decentralization of departments or functions
Use of consultants vs hiring internal resources
Outsourcing vs insourcing
This reminded me about the lines from the Disney movie, "The Lion King," where young Simba gets the explanation about how the antelopes eat the grass and the lions eat the antelopes, and then the lions die and their bodies turn to grass (OK, you knew it would be a PG version) which is then eaten by the antelopes.  So everything comes back to a big circle of replaying the same scenarios.
For process changes, it's easy to see how this becomes just another bright idea to wait out, to someone who's been around a long time.  Especially when you're in an organization that promises that every change is NOT just the flavor of the month, and then six months later it's disappeared.  So how can I criticize someone for saying, "Well, go ahead with this Lean thing, I'll just wait and see what comes of it before getting enthusiastic about it."  After all, they've probably been right about all the other wonderful new initiatives and changes that have come and gone before.
Maybe you are fortunate enough to work in a place which has solved this circular pattern, or maybe you are trying to break out of that.  Would you care to share your experiences, to help us put some perspective on the issue?
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:51:52 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Alice in Processland]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/alice_in_processland.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A quote from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), 1865:
"The White Rabbit put on his spectacles.  'Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.  'Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'"
I am sure I'm not the only one who as asked, "Where does this process begin?" only to find a dozen or so different answers, depending on who is asked.  Just how far back doyou go into the decision-making that may trigger a process, and the factors that influence the decision, and the issues that led to the factors being important, etc. etc. etc.?
And, where does the process stop?  For a product, is it when the customer receives the goods?  When they use the item for the first time?  When they finish using the item?  Or, for a service, when they receive the service, or when they utilize the benefits of the service if that's at a later time?
This may seem simple, but, in practice I've seen a lot of conversations get into a circular mode about just what step should be considered the start or trigger for the process.  I'm just wondering if anyone has any words of wisdom, from their experience with process mapping and process analysis - and would you like to share?
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:31:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Will the Real Process Owner Please Stand Up?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/will_the_real_process_owner_please_stand_up.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I was leading a department, I never thought of myself as a process owner.  It wasn't in my job description, and I never heard anyone used the term.  It's one of those useful concepts that I wish I had known, prior to my Six Sigma and Lean education.
Here's my working definition:  The process owner is that leader who is closest to the process itself, who has responsibility for achieving the expected outcome of the process, both before and after an improvement project.
So now, I try to introduce the term right away and use it frequently so that everyone knows what the role is, in respect to a project (and afterwards).  I also try to spend extra time with the process owner if they are new to the role.  Even then, though, it's hard sometimes to get across the continuing expectations.  A statement that I hear frequently is, "I'm glad that the project is over - now I can quit being the process owner!"
Have any of you faced this challenge, or is it more clearcut in some industries than in others?  Have you had to do extra education or mentoring of someone who was not sure they were a process owner - for either a project or a process?  Do you have a different definition of process owner, that's been helpful for you?
It would be great to hear your thoughts.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:38:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: My Favorite Tools]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/my_favorite_tools.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, maybe I have more than one favorite tool - but there are 2 that are fun to use with a group.
One is sticky-note brainstorming.  It avoids the perils of the regular "everybody call out their ideas" brainstorming, because (a) you get 100% participation; (b) you can get LOTS of ideas in just a few minutes; (c) you don’t need a scribe to try to capture everything as multiple people are speaking quickly; (d) you avoid people being worried about "what will my boss think" about an idea; (e) it’s anonymous so people are braver; (f) you can put duplicates on top of one another and categorize with ease, just by moving them around.  Also (g) you can use colorful sticky-notes and make a cheerful impression rather than a boring one!
Secondly, if I’m using the group’s ideas to capture possible solutions, I really like to use an Impact/Effort Matrix.  You may have heard of this under another name - it’s a 2x2 matrix with Impact along one axis (High, Low) and Effort along the other (Easy, Hard).  I ask the group members to place the sticky notes in the appropriate category - if there’s doubt they can place them on the dividing line.  Then I can facilitate the group to ask, "Does this idea belong here?  Do we all agree that it’s High Impact (or whatever) and Easy to do?"  If not, we have a good discussion and end up with consensus.  It’s amazing how this helps to prioritize the efforts - we will definitely pursue the "High Impact, Easy" ideas; think about a plan for the "High Impact, Hard" ideas; see if we can catch some low hanging fruit with the "Low Impact, Easy" ideas; and forget about the "Low Impact, Hard" ideas.
These ideas can then be turned into action plans or placed in a parking lot as appropriate.  Using the sticky-note brainstorming to get 100% participation, and the Impact/Effort Matrix to prioritize ideas, results in better decision-making and better buy-in to the resulting plans.
What are your favorite change management / process improvement tools?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:33:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Great Healthcare Debate]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_great_healthcare_debate.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While the iSixSigma.com site has been down, the rhetoric about "fixing healthcare" in the US has dramatically heated up.  "We need to take the waste out of healthcare!"  "We're paying too much for healthcare!"  "Everyone should get all the healthcare they need regardless of cost!"
Without getting into the political debate, let's just touch on these points from a quality perspective.
There's a balance between cost, speed and quality that's quite a challenge in healthcare.  For example, if I order $5000 worth of tests on day 1, and can tell you your diagnosis on day 2 and start treatment, what's that worth to you and your health (even if it turns out that 5 tests out of the 30 ordered didn't help with the diagnosis)?  How about taking the cost-effective route:  I'll order one test per day, evaluate the results, and then order the next test.  It may take me 21 days to figure it out, while you are waiting all the while, but hey! it did cost less!  So, in which example was there more waste???
Paying too much for healthcare... does that mean we are paying more than the value we receive, or just more than we desire to (or can afford to) pay?  Most of us a) don't know how much our healthcare actually costs; b) can't judge the quality of the medical care we receive; and c) won't haggle over the cost of an IV solution when the care of a loved one is at stake.  There's an emotional element of this debate that is not susceptible to logical reasoning.  We see this in all the stories of people who have gotten poor care or ran out of money or their insurance wouldn't cover a certain procedure.  If we try to "ration" care in the most logical way possible, we immediately run into the emotional (or moral, if you prefer) discussion about denying care to those who need it on a purely financial basis.  The factual and emotional issues are entangled as we debate this topic.  
Should everyone get the healthcare they need regardless of cost?  It's my personal opinion that provision of basic services, including healthcare, should be a function of an organized society.  But, it's not a "commodity" service like garbage collection, is it?  Since we do have to look to our tax-paying citizens and employers to pay for "healthcare for all" - the question of course is, how much should each of us contribute to this worthy cause?  And who decides how that money is to be used?
Having stirred the pot this morning, I will close by saying - it's a complex system!

There are no "specifications" for inputs (patients who need care come in all conditions and with variation in their genetic, mental, physical, experiential, cultural, economic, and social backgrounds); 
Processes are highly complex with many stakeholders and overlapping responsibilities
There is an expert-based culture of physician caregivers (now expanding slightly to other medical professionals);
Outcomes may not meet the patients' goals through no-one's fault (you can mostly blame our biologically-based life processes, I guess) but which may in some cases be due to poor care or non-compliance on the part of the patient (for example, not taking medications in the way they were prescribed).  
So I just caution you to think carefully about all the proposals that will be floated to "fix" the healthcare system, and don't jump to solutions too soon on this one.
Is healthcare in its current form in the US perfect?  NO!  But first I think we have to go back to quality basics and agree on who are the customers, and what is value-added to those customers.  I've seen many more "solutions" floated, than thoughtful consideration of just what it is we want to get to.  I encourage everyone to join this debate from the quality improvement perspective, and to lend your expertise to the discussion!
 
p.s.  It's good to be "back on the air" again!  Kudos to those at iSixSigma.com who have been working to resolve the issues that interrupted service over the past several weeks.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:36:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Training:  Enough, Already?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/training_enough_already.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I enjoy teaching, so if you asked me whether you could do too much training, my first response would be "no, of course not!"
But, on second thought, I would have to say, "well, maybe."
It's been my experience that knowledge alone is usually not enough to create an improvement.  A lot of people enjoy being trained (a day away from the office, with lunch included) and also like knowing what could be done to create a better process.  But, having a lot of knowledgeable people bumping around in your organization doesn't necessarily mean that there are any improvement activities going in.  It's the doing - or execution, if you will - that separates the thinkers from the achievers.  So the important question seems to be, when do you know enough to start improving things?
There is a train of thought that runs like this:  "We don't need to train our whole organization in Lean or Six Sigma; that takes way to long to get any ROI (Return on Investment).  Let's start by getting some project teams together and use them to drive improvements."
There's another train of thought that says, "Let's not go shooting off in a lot of different directions. We'll train our executives, then our other leaders, then our managers, then our front-line staff; we'll come up with a deployment plan, and then we'll be ready to do projects."
So is there a "right" way to approach a Lean Six Sigma deployment?
Now, before you all write back to me telling saying that the answer is "IT DEPENDS!" I will ask the question a different way:  Have you, in your experiences, ever found that an organization did too much training?  Or that an organization did too little training?  What were the effects or consequences?  And what advice would you give an organization new to Lean Six Sigma, on the balance between training and project focus?  Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 11:10:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Getting the Word Out]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/getting_the_word_out.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I begin a new project, I include a Communication Plan as part of my team work.  That is, we take the stakeholder list and think about who we need to be in communication with, as we move through the project phases.  Some of you may do this based on an ARMI exercise (Approvers/ Resources/ Members/ Interested Parties) or Stakeholder Analysis exercise (List of key stakeholders and their estimated level of commitment to the project).  We include activities like face-to-face conversations, presentations in department meetings, newsletter articles, postings on the web site, etc.
But even though we try to heed the mantra, "communicate 8 times, 8 ways" it seems like we always have a gap in our communication.
For example:  Our team invites a key department leader to our project meeting; we discuss our project and get agreement as to next steps.  We plan an elevator speech and ask the leader to discuss it at his/her next department meeting and get agreement to do that.  We talk about possibly sending an email or posting information on the department's bulletin board for those who can't attend the meeting.  All good so far!
Then, a week later - after the department meeting, and having seen for ourselves that the information is posted on the bulletin board, a few team members stroll through the department to gauge the level of buy-in.  And - do they find that everyone is informed, interested, and enthusiastic about the project?  Or, do they find that people are negative toward the new process that's coming their way?
Why, no!  We find that most people remember vaguely hearing something about some new process, and others just give us blank stares.  When the bulletin board is mentioned, we get the response "Oh, I know it's there but it never changes so I don't look at it."
So, what are our learnings from this type of situation?  We only communicated once or twice, one or two ways - so obviously we would need to keep our communication plan active!  But are there other ways that you have been successful communicating outside of your project team, as you make progress?  Thanks in advance for sharing!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 08:24:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Ready for Change... Almost!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/ready_for_change_almost.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You've completed your planning phase - whether it's specifying value and mapping the value stream, Defining / Measuring / Analyzing, or Planning - and you're ready to move into Creating Flow, Improving, or Doing.  Hooray!  The pilot plan has been finalized, the Process Owner says it's fine, the team is ready to move forward.  And then...
Little cracks start appearing in the plan.  "We forgot about..."  "One of our team members says the plan won't work because..."  "We thought the computer system did THIS and instead it works like THAT so our plan needs to be changed!"
How many times have you gone through these pre-improvement jitters?  Is it a matter of staying calm in the face of chaos, staying the course, trusting the process?  Have you ever had an experience where you really did have to call a halt and regroup, because you found out that there was a major roadblock in your path?
As an optimist, I try to stay flexible and reassure the team that we can address issues as they appear, usually by obtaining additional information and clarifying the issue before deciding that we need to make a change.  But I have had to halt a project just as we were moving into Improve, because the hospital decided to implement a new computer system in the department just at that time, rather than waiting for the project to be completed.  And in fact, if we had completed our project without the new system, we probably would have had to re-do the process following the system implementation anyway.  Plus, the same people who were on our team were also the people who were wanted for the design of the new system, so there was a resource conflict as well.
What we did was to put the project on "hiatus" for three months.  Then, we re-measured and re-analyzed, to see if we still had the same critical factors, tweaked our Improve plan, and proceeded.  It didn't feel very good at the time, but it all worked out in the end.
Have you had this experience?  How did you handle a halt or delay in a project that was in full swing?  Please share your stories!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 07:28:14 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Small Things]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/small_things.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've attended a lot of leadership development courses over the years, and received many handouts, folders, and binders chock full of ways to make myself into a better manager... of people, time, money, etc.
One precept that has stuck with me is that we should pay attention to the small things that are annoyances today, so they don't become bigger problems tomorrow.  Even if it's unlikely that something will become a big problem, it's worth the effort to eliminate it so that it isn't draining our energy to deal with.
Ben Franklin figured this out long ago, with his saying "A stitch in time saves nine."  As a youngster, I confess that this didn't make much sense to me.  What is a stitch in time?  (Is that a problem in the space-time continuum?)  Saves nine what?  Now I get it - sewing up a small rip saves it from getting larger and needing more stitches to fix later - perhaps after all my money has fallen out of the pocket!  (Just goes to show why I wasn't any good in my Home Economics classes.)  
In my daily work, I try to be on the lookout for those small things - like, my stapler broke and I can't take the time to order a new one, so I have to keep using paper clips that fall off.  Like, my AAA battery died in my mouse but I don't have time to stop and get new batteries from central supply, so I'll use the keyboard alternatives.  Like, one of may chair casters fell off and I've propped it up with a book "for now."
Sometimes it's a matter of looking at things from a lean perspective - kanban or 5S is very helpful.  But it's also the concept of taking time to fix the small things, so that I don't spend a lot of time doing work-arounds which are innately less efficient and less satisfying.
Maybe you have already found this out for yourself - want to share any related examples or experiences?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:59:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Before &amp; After]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/before_amp_after.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My organization requires that we write our annual performance goals into a web-based system that can be sent to our bosses for their review.  As I was working on this last week, it struck me that in the past I would not have written those goals the way I do now.
For example, "improve service" would have been a typical goal for one of my previous positions.  Today I'd be examining:  What data will be used to measure the improvement?  What is the target?  What type(s) of service would be in scope?  What customer segment would be studied?  Who are the stakeholders for this service, and how many would have influence or control over aspects of the improvement?
In other words, I'd be a lot more specific - call it SMART if you want - and at the end of the year I could clearly tell whether or not I had met the goal.  In the past, I'd say "well I worked really hard all year on this and I think people are more satisfied with the service, based on the 2 - 3 customers I spoke with."
Now, it's still possible to "game" the system by picking easy targets that would be hard to miss, or choosing focus areas without established metrics.  But, I wonder how much more effective I would have been as a supervisor, manager, or director if I had known and used a process- and metrics-oriented approach to leadership.
So here's my question to my readers!  Have you used a Lean, Six Sigma, or other process-based approach your whole professional career, or did you learn it mid-career?  It would be interesting to know what your reflections on the difference it might have made, had you been exposed to the concepts and methodology earlier in life - I invite you to share.
[Note:  For those who may not have run into this acronym before, SMART refers to goals or metrics that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound.  There are a few variant versions but all reflect the same basic principles.]]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:40:04 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: More Than Advice]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/more_than_advice.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've done a lot of informal coaching in my career - you know, the kind where you're in conversation and someone says, "Gee, Sue, can you give me advice on..." and I get to cheerfully dispense my words of wisdom and then wish them good luck with their problem.  Sometimes people seek me out and ask to talk over things with me, to help clarify an issue or opportunity.  That's also fun and from feedback I've received, people usually appreciate having me as a sounding board.
But I've recently been asked to take on a more formal coaching role with project leaders.  I won't be on the project teams, but I will meet with the project leaders to provide guidance.  Some of my leaders are experienced and some are new to the whole thing; some are using Six Sigma and others Lean.  Mostly I try to tell them things I wish I had known when I started in process improvement, and to give them good advice that they can take or leave at their discretion.  If they run into problems I try to help develop an approach with them.
I'm at ease about technical coaching - tools, methods, reports, etc., but this "soft side" is more of a challenge for me.  
As a "Driver" by nature I worry a lot about subconsciously trying to make them fit into the pattern that works for me, rather than letting them find their own way.  Should I "give them enough rope to hang themselves" and then help them pick up the pieces?  (I've been mentored this way myself and found it to be quite uncomfortable at the receiving end.  On the other hand, I did learn a lot!)  Or should I try to guide them on every foreseeable response and give them Plan A, B, and C for every contingency?  (Over-thinking?)  If they have a different personality style than I do, am I trying to make them more like me because that's what I'm comfortable with?  If I think they are going off-track, do I "give it to them straight" or tactfully share some hints on how it might work better the next time, so I don't discourage them too much?
For those of you who are experienced mentors, can you share any general advice on how to balance the "push" of helping the project leaders to get their project deliverables accomplished, and the "pull" of guiding, aiding, and supporting?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:57:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean at Work, Lean at Home???]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_at_work_lean_at_home.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was asked a very interesting question last week, after I gave a lecture on 5S.
"Do you find that people who are very organized and who apply Lean or Six Sigma principles at work, also apply these same principles at home?  Is this linked to a personality trait?"
Now I will confess right off that I am NOT always as organized at home as I am at work.  Part of that has to do with the different amounts and types of stresses that are in the work vs home environment, and part of that is related to my particular personality trait or preference if you will.  I am (believe it or not) an introvert by nature.  Now, my favorite definition of the terms introvert and extrovert is not related to being happy in a crowd - but is related to how we recharge our batteries.  Think of a Friday evening, when you have just gotten off work and are heading home.  It's been a long, exhausting week with a lot of extra time spent on the job.  Do you prefer to recharge by (a) going to a party or event with a lot of excitement and energy in the room, or (b) going home or to a quiet place with soft music, a good book or show, and limited interaction?  I'm in the (b) category, so I call myself an "adapted introvert" - most of my work is done with and through people, so at work I'm a driver and always "on" for my audience.  At home I'm a low-energy kinda gal.
So back to the question - my answer was that I know many people who are as driven at home as they are at work - color-coded containers, everything in its place, ready for a surprise meeting or out-of-town guests at a moment's notice.  I also know people like myself who are very organized at work but more laid-back at home.  Truthfully I don't know anyone who is unorganized at work, but very organized at home.  (But maybe I should get out more!)
What do you think?  Do you agree with my categories, and would you have answered the question differently?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:25:44 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The C Word]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_c_word.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That would be... Consultants.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak about lean for clinical laboratories at the recent Leadership Exchange conference, hosted by the American Society for Clinical Pathology.  In discussions during the conference, I was asked many questions about the use of consultants to get started with lean.  In many cases, stories started with "Our lab has been leaned out," with the consequences of positions being eliminated, front-line workers being unhappy with the standard work that someone else had decided for them, and being asked to clock each and every step of their process for days on end.
So my question is, what is passing for lean these days?  No wonder I hear people saying, "Lean doesn't work!"
Now, I know that there are many fine, upstanding lean practitioners out there, who use strategic planning and the A3 approach to lean deployment.  Maybe I don't hear about them because they're doing a fine, value-added job.  But I do hear many stories about lean gone wrong.
Have you had an experience where someone was claiming to be a lean expert, but it didn't resemble lean philosophy as you know it?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:49:30 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Is Healthcare the Next Big Thing?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/is_healthcare_the_next_big_thing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've had a lot pf people asking me about healthcare lately.  As in, "Now that big corporations and the automotive companies are reeling, with the stimulus coming and promises of healthcare reform, isn't it a great time to move out of the manufacturing sector and into process improvement in healthcare?" 
Well, it's true that there are vast opportunities for improvement in healthcare.  No one has the corner on perfection in care processes (although we're all working madly on it, especially now that there's public posting of healthcare quality - check out "Hospital Compare") or in the support processes like patient accounting and billing.  If I had my way, there'd be an improvement professional as a permanent part of every department's budget.
But, just think a moment.  Who pays for healthcare in the US?  First of all, the federal government, which is desperately trying to shrink the amount it pays for healthcare even as it's talking about access for all.  Many hospitals have 40 - 60% of their revenues coming from Medicare and/or Medicaid.  Frequently the government reduces reimbursements with very little warning.  It's an interesting thing, these days, to try to budget for healthcare when your major source of revenue pays 10% - 15% less every six months or so.
Then, there is the second largest healthcare revenue source, and that would be employers.  Specifically, those same big corporations and automotive companies that are in a bit of trouble these days, along with their suppliers and vendors.  As these companies have massive layoffs, and shrink benefits for the remaining workers, what's the outcome?  People will tend to utilize preventative services less frequently (because of those big copays and deductibles).  And out-of-work employees have usually have a little coverage with COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) benefits, but then may have trouble paying the premiums - thousands of dollars a month.  Therefore, hospitals are bracing for huge increases in emergency care visits which will either be reimbursed at lower rates (Medicare / Medicaid) or not reimbursed at all.  So there will be less revenue there as well.
Now, back to those opportunities.  If you were a hospital executive, knowing that less-costly processes would have a positive impact on your contribution margin, wouldn't you invest heavily in the very people who can do this work for you?  Why wouldn't you want to have a trained group of healthcare Black Belts or Lean Practitioners at your hospital or healthcare company?
Well, because of the decrease in insurance revenue and the hit everyone's pension plan took with the stock market plunge, there just aren't enough dollars to fund everything that needs to be supported.  Hospital executives are having to make hard choices - and believe me, they'll lay almost anyone off before they lose nurses or other direct care staff.
So, while ideally every healthcare company and organization would be heavily into process improvement, the truth is that if you're trying to go from a manufacturing or transactional position into healthcare, it's almost like "out of the frying pan, into the fire."  Admittedly, I'm from Southeastern Michigan where we are really feeling the impact of the uncertainty in the automotive industry.  However, the economic downturn has affected just about everyone in healthcare, whether they were prudent with their pension fund investments or not.
As an optimist by nature, I'm sure we'll pull out of this slump and eventually be able to look on the bright side of life once again.  In the meantime, if you're looking for a healthcare position, do your research and speak with those already involved, so you go in forewarned and forearmed!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:19:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Edgar Allan Poe was a Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/edgar_allan_poe_was_a_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,O’er Breyfogle, George, and other volumes of forgotten lore,While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my office door.‘’Tis some Green Belt,’ soft I muttered, ‘working late on his R4 –Only this, and nothing more.”
Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,And binders of Six Sigma projects lay like ghosts upon the floor.Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrowFrom “Lean Thinking” ease of sorrow – sorrow for the lost Lean lore,For the rare and radiant flowing caused by using pure Lean lore,Flow of process evermore.
Back to my Cox Comics turning, all my soul within me burning,Soon again I heard a louder tapping, harsher than it was before.‘Surely someone’s working late, trying to finish their last tollgate,I don’t want to make them wait – I must this mystery explore - Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -‘Twill take a moment – nothing more!’
So I flung the doorway wide, and, without a glance aside,In there stepped a stately figure I could not in truth ignore.Not the least of hand-shakes made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;Bold and mute and unafraid he came within my office door – Looked like young Shigeo Shingo coming in my office door –Looked, and sat, and nothing more.
Then this silent form amazed me by the way his silence dazed me,By the look of grave intelligence and utter thoughtfulness he wore,‘Thou thy head be shorn and shaven, thou’ I said, ‘art sure no raven.Ghastly grim and ancient maven wandering from the shop room floor –Tell me what thy lordly name is, teacher, I do thee implore!’Quoth the Sensei, ‘Nevermore.’
‘What?’ asked I, merely guessing what the Sensei was expressingAs his fiery eyes burned through my scattered R4s on the floor;Was he looking for my A3s, did he doubt my CTQ trees,Did he think my 5-Whys weak and my lead times so very poor?‘What!’ I shrieked, ‘You think my methods and my computations poor?’Quoth the Sensei ‘Nevermore.’
‘Trickster!’ said I, ‘Thing of evil! – Causing waste by this upheaval!It’s not Pull that brought you calling!  By the Flow we both adore –Tell this soul with deadlines harried if, within locations varied,Through deserts hauled or rivers ferried, I can find the lost Lean lore –Perhaps a book that you have written, penned to share the pure Lean lore?’Quoth the Sensei, ‘Nevermore.’
‘Be that word our sign of parting, foul-mouthed fiend!’ I shrieked upstarting –‘Get thee back into the workplace and your own shop’s gemba floor!Leave no A3 as a token of the word that thou hast has spoken!Leave me with my mind all broken! – quit the chair that’s near my door!Take thy Wastes and 5S forms and take thyself right out my door!Quoth the Sensei, ‘Nevermore.’
And the Sensei, not submitting, still is sitting, still is sittingNear the photo of Jim Womack framed above my office door;And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floorShall be lifted – nevermore!
(With apologies to Edgar Allan Poe, whose poem "The Raven" was written in 1845.)]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:33:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Sensei Sue???]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/sensei_sue.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was talking with a group of people about leading lean, and someone asked me, "Are you a Sensei?"
So of course I said "No!"  I don’t call myself a Sensei, because I consider myself to be at the grasshopper-level of lean expertise.
However, the question did make me think.  I call myself a Black Belt without blinking an eye - on the checklist of how to be a Black Belt, I have filled in all the boxes:  [ ] Go through formal classroom training with hands-on practice and exercises. [ ] Be mentored in leading a project team through a Six Sigma DMAIC project, with all the bells &amp; whistles (graphical, statistical, and lean analysis). [ ] Get seal of approval in the form of a signed certificate from the MBB teaching the class. [ ] Fulfill additional years of leading Six Sigma teams with demonstrated tangible &amp; intangible benefits. And, because I’m an overachiever, [ ] Obtain certification from a national professional organization so my credentials would be a little more portable/marketable (being honest about it!).
So why don’t I call myself a Sensei?  What’s the checklist for that?  One of my teachers told me it would take leading hundreds of lean projects.  There’s a lot of debate about whether Lean practitioners should get into the certification race.  I’m starting to see jobs posted that require "certification in lean."
Are you a Sensei?  Do you know anyone who is?  And what does that mean?  Inquiring minds want to know!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:50:27 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Defects in Healthcare]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/defects_in_healthcare.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last Friday I taught a Lean Leadership class for my healthcare organization.  The participants included all levels of support staff, physicians, nurses, and department leaders.  They grasped the concepts easily, and we had a lot of fun with the simulation exercise.  In the first round, of course, no products made it to the customer.  In the second round, after applying 5S and reducing batch size for better flow, a few products made it to the customer but with some defects.  
In the third round, after applying takt time and level loading, more product units made it to the customer but with even more defects.  This prompted an interesting discussion, as we were reviewing the cost of defects (in our simulation, a delivered product brings revenue of $100 per unit, defects cost $20 and Work In Progress $5).  One of the physicians brought up a great point - what is the "cost of defects" in healthcare?  
In the most purely commercial aspect, the cost of poor quality is the cost of rework and so-called service recovery.  In a risk-managed world, you might add in the cost of potential law-suits and malpractice insurance.  You can even go so far as to put a value on the person's life, for example the number of years remaining of potential employability, and possible value and/or contributions to family, employers, and community.
But the defect that the physician was talking about was the defect of an adverse outcome for a patient.  And it was obvious that every single person in the room had a dedication to the safety of every one of the patients under their care.  So we talked about the cost of a defect related to patient safety, and that the lives under their care were literally "priceless" regardless of what the risk-adjusters might say.  And we can have a huge impact on that safety by using Lean concepts and tools, and integrating the check-do-check into our processes, while streamlining the work and empowering healthcare professionals to call "Stop!" when they see something that may not be right.
The rest of the exercise went very well - the fourth round was organized around a pull system adjusted to takt time, incorporating check-do-check.  The customer had just the right number of units, WIP was minimal, they made money, and they had no defects.
But the memory that I will take from this class is the absolute dedication that this group had to the welfare of their patients.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:25:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: MANY THANKS]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/many_thanks.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was very honored to have been nominated for the iSixSigma MVP Award for "Best Blogger" - given the high quality of my fellow nominees, Robin Barnwell and Gianna Clark, I was not expecting to receive this recognition!  Attending the iSixSigma Live! conference was a blast, and I had a lot of fun and met a lot of great people (and learned a lot) in addition to the pleasure of receiving this reward.  The recognition items were great - the Cox Box mug from 10/15/07 and a mousepad with a quote from W. Edwards Deming:  "If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, then you don't know what you're doing."  Priceless.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has posted blogs - I'm constantly learning from your contributions - and to those who have contributed to the blogs by posting responses.  Your willingness to put your thoughts "out there" helps to broaden the discussion and is valuable to all readers.
I was able to meet Michael Marx and Michael Cyger in person, and I'd like to thank them as well for their support and encouragement during my tenure as blogger here.  I related the following story to Michael Marx and he told me to write about it in my blog, so here it is!
When I was a Clinical Laboratory Manager at a former employer, in 2003, the organization decided to try something new to help improve its quality.  A notice was sent out to all leaders regarding the introduction of something called "Six Sigma" and the need for four new "Black Belts" to lead hospital-wide process improvement projects.  There wasn't any job description, yet, and no salary decisions had been made, and there was no career path developed.  Well, I decided that regardless of the lack of specifics, I was ready to try out for it.  I'd been doing change projects for a long time time in my career, and felt that I could step up to the next level.  But, I didn't know anything about Six Sigma - and what the heck was a Black Belt if not an expert in karate?
I wanted to appear knowledgeable in my interview, so I went to the public library and took out "Lean Six Sigma" by Michael George.  Then I went on-line and searched for "Six Sigma."  One of the first sites that came up was iSixSigma.com.  I found a lot of information there, and it became my best resource for information such as - 10 attributes of Black Belts, how come they're called Black Belts, what is Six Sigma, and so forth.  As a result, I went into the interview knowing a little more (dare I say it) than the interviewers, and in fact I was brave (or foolish) enough to tell the panel that I didn't think their case study merited a Six Sigma project, since the scope looked more appropriate for a WorkOut.  (Well, that gave them the idea that I wasn't afraid to take risks, anyway!)  In spite of this, they liked what they saw and when they asked me where I had learned about Six Sigma, I told them I'd done a lot of research on-line and my primary source was iSixSigma.com!  The rest, as they say, is history and I was on my way to being a Wave I Six Sigma Black Belt.
I never would have guessed that I would be a blogger for iSixSigma a few years after that.  My first blog was posted in April 2006 and I hope to continue for a long time to come!
Thanks again everyone for responding to my posts and for sharing your great ideas in this forum!
--Sue Kozlowski]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Conferences&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:04:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: New Year's Resolution]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/new_years_resolution.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This year, I'm making a resolution to do a good deed daily.  This is inspired in part by Gianna Clark's latest blog, How W.O.W.?, but also by my own sense of imbalance in the customer feedback that most organizations receive.
I've communicated about problems and complaints many times - but - I realized that I don't give positive feedback very often.  (And don't we Process Improvers always say, that we receive more negative feedback than positive?  It's embarrassing to realize that I'm not walking the talk!)  So this year I'm trying to look for daily opportunities to give kudos and complements - not only for the WOW moments but when people show special care and attentiveness.
Like Gianna, my husband and I had the occasion to process a transaction at our local bank the other day.  We stopped in to cash out a CD (boy, just when you think your child's college expenses are all set, there's always another special need!!).  Anyway, the young man who helped us a) checked our interest amount for our savings account and increased it, based on our average balance over the past few months; b) suggested a better way to transfer funds to avoid fees and delays; c) talked with us about special offers and opportunities related to our credit and debit cards, and didn't pressure us when we declined.  
We didn't have a bell to ring, like GIanna did, but we asked to speak to his manager, and then asked her to put a note in his file for excellent customer service.  They were both surprised and pleased (expecting the negative) and we felt that we had done a good deed.
This is one resolution that will be fun to keep up!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:59:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: When is Lean... Not Lean?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/when_is_lean_not_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been thinking a lot lately about how the Toyota Production System was developed.  Unlike those of us who have books, websites, and training programs in abundance, Toyota engineers took their process of assembly-line manufacture of automobiles and created, in incremental steps, the methodology that's now known as Lean.  It took shape over a long period, as different contributors added their ideas to create a strong "House of Quality" for the Toyota Motor Company.
But - what if these bright people had not come from automotive manufacturing?  What if they had come from (for example) healthcare?
I know that this is akin to imagining what the earth would be like today if there were no moon.  (Just think - no tides.  Different air and water currents.  Little shore erosion - no sand?  Hard to imagine!)

What if their initial process studies were not based on repetitive motions that could be adapted to robotic or at least automated mechanisms?
What if their major source of variation was not the mechanical devices, but the people who provided the process?
What if their processes were not amenable to on-the-job training, but required differentiation of skill and ability at the level of advanced education and training?
What if their product was not someone who "ordered" a tangible object, but someone who showed up unannounced with a mysterious problem that couldn't be solved by just looking at it?
It made me think that if those bright young engineers had worked in healthcare, that what we now call Lean would be vastly different than what was developed by Toyota.
And, as a related thought, it made me wonder what we are doing by applying lean manufacturing principles to healthcare.
Now, I'm not the healthcare equivalent to Eiji Toyoda.  Or Shigeo Shingo.  Or Genichi Taguchi.  Or any of the other brilliant minds that helped to develop the Toyota Production System.
But, am I doing a disservice to my providers and customers, when I try to fit lean manufacturing methods to a highly technically-skilled service environment?
I've heard over and over again that lean can be adapted to any process, anywhere, in any industry or branch of service.  I've done many lean projects myself, and seen the very tangible benefits that value-stream thinking and creation of flow can produce, along with level loading and consideration of takt time.
But are we only seeing the tip of the iceberg?  What further benefits might we see if we developed a "service system" that used tools uniquely intended for service processes, rather than adapting manufacturing tools as best we can?
Just asking!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:27:41 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Lean Carol]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_lean_carol.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, it's time for my annual Christmas Blog!  With apologies to Charles Dickens, here is my adapted version of his "Ghost Story of Christmas" (first published in 1843).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stave 1:  Muda's Ghost
The workers at the Shusendo &amp; Muda Company are very busy being highly productive.  The boss, Ebenezer Shusendo, only gives performance bonuses based on individual productivity so everyone works as hard as they can regardless of what the customers want.  Shusendo's nephew, Eiji, stops by to wish him a "Lean Christmas!" but Shusendo dismisses him with "Bah, Humbug!"  The clerk, Taiichi, knows there is a better way to approach things and vows to "keep Lean in my heart, all the year long!"  After intense negotiating, Taiichi is allowed to take Christmas day off, which confirms Shusendo's opinion that his employees just don't work hard enough.
When Shusendo returns home, he starts to see all kinds of apparitions - movement of product in a continuous flow, loud ringing of andon signals, and pictures in his rooms turning into Value Stream Maps.  The ghost of Muda visits him, and warns that if he doesn't mend his ways, his company will continue to show decreasing profits.  All of his workers will leave and his company will fold.  He will walk the earth in misery, bearing the burden of waste that he could have eliminated in his processes.  His only chance of redemption is to listen to three spirits who will visit him that night.
Stave 2:  The First of the Three Spirits
The Ghost of Lean Past, Henry Ford, visits Shusendo and takes him on a journey to his childhood.  Shusendo is shown a happy party given by his first employer, who shared profits with his workers.  He is reminded of his first love, Puriti, and how she left him because he was too busy doing rework at his company.  They visit Frederick Winslow Taylor and see him writing "The Principles of Scientific Management;" and they take a tour of the Rouge plant in its heyday in Dearborn Michigan.  Finally, they end up at the Toyota Automatic Loom Works.  Furious at being shown the opportunities that were missed to make a huge improvement in his own company, Shusendo gets angry at the spirit only to find that he has been returned to his own bed.
Stave 3:  The Second of the Three Spirits
The Ghost of Lean Present, Genichi Taguchi, shows Shusendo busy factories and organizations in the modern day.  Many companies are incorporating lean principles into their operations, and sharing the least-waste way.  They value their employees as creators of value for their customers, and try to make sure that there is flow in each step.  Shusendo sees the huge impact that pull systems have, and becomes interested in lean concepts.  They watch his clerk Taiichi (who tries to use Lean tools when his boss isn't watching) at Christmas dinner with his family, including Tiny Toyoda, who has carpal-tunnel syndrome from unnecessary processing.  Even though many people are trying to become lean, the Ghost shows Shusendo two pitiful workers huddled under his robes who personify the major causes of poor production, Mura (unevenness) and Muri (unnecessary work).  As the bell strikes twelve midnight, the Ghost vanishes.
Stave 4:  The Last of the Three Spirits
The Ghost of Lean Yet to Come arrives as a shadowy figure, robed in black, who points grimly at all of the waste present in production processes all over the world.  The Ghost shows Shusendo's clerk Taiichi mourning the loss of his son, Tiny Toyoda.  Even worse is the scene of the Global Takeover Company in the process of purchasing what's left of Shusendo &amp; Muda, only to liquidate it for a quick profit.  In great fear over this possible future, Shusendo begs the Ghost to send him back so he can change everything for the better.  Weeping, he wakes to find that it is Christmas morning and he has been allowed to return to his former life.
Stave 5:  The End of It
Shusendo is overjoyed to mend his ways.  He sends his clerk Taiichi a roast goose "just in time" for Christmas dinner, and promises to implement Lean in his company.  He surprises everyone with his new-found respect for people, and reduces overprocessing so Tiny Toyoda doesn't need to wear his wrist braces any more.  He earns a reputation for incorporating the spirit and principles of lean, in addition to utilizing lean tools and concepts.  He even changes his name to Sensei Soushou.  
To quote from the end of the story:  "He had no further dealings with the Spirits, but lived upon the Lean Principle, ever afterwards, and it was always said of him, that he knew how to eliminate waste, if anyone alive possessed the knowledge.  May that truly be said of us, and all of us!  And so, as Tiny Toyoda observed, Learn To See, Every One!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Happy holidays to all!
 
 
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:27:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Least-Effort Way]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_least_effort_way.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We've all seen the "resistance curve" where a few people are innovators, some are early adopters, early and late majorities, and a few are laggards, or skeptics, or what-have-you (from the work of Everett Rogers and other researchers). 
One way to get almost everyone to be an early adopter is to offer something of value - money, time off, presents.  Yes, bribes (as well as food) are well-known tools for speeding change acceptance.  Did you ever hear of anyone resisting a bonus check?  (I do know of one instance where a person received an unexpected bonus check for $100, then complained because the check wasn't for an amount that would have yielded $100 after taxes.)
However, there's another inducement to change that I've observed.  When people are introduced to the possibility of a new or different process, they sometimes are eager to embrace change as long as the new process meets one criterion:  It's "less work" for them.
Now, this is a little different discussion than most of us have had about Radio Station WII-FM:  What's In It For Me?  These particular folks don't want to be jollied into accepting more work; they just want to do less work (by their own definition).
Because, let's face it - often, it's "more work" to do something right the first time, in the way it's supposed to be done, than to do it poorly the first time and let someone else do the rework later.  Regardless of the potential benefit and value to the customer, some people who are "in the moment" just care about the work that they do personally.  It's so easy to get caught up in what's value-added for ourselves and to lose track of what's value added for the customer.
I don't want to get diverted into related discussions about the work ethic of our Generation-X and Gen-Y employees (not to mention the Millennials); or Theory X (people try to do the least work) vs Theory Y (people try to do a good job).  I'd just like to know whether anyone else has experienced this, and what they have done to address it.  After all, we won't get far with process improvement if the gold standard is that everyone will do less work than they were doing before!
Or will we?!?!?!?!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:22:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Travel (or not!)]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_travel_or_not.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've spent a good part of this past summer travelling for business.  In the past, I might have flown a few times a year for conferences, but this year I've earned quite a few "miles,"  Now, I know that some of you are already experienced Road Warriors, and you are probably already laughing at me, but I'd like to share some "learnings" from my lean perspective!
Who's the customer of an airport?  Not, it would seem, the fliers.  Yes, we spend the money for the ticket.  And what's value-added for us?  Getting on the plane in time for departure - comfortable flight - arriving on time, at the right airport, safely - retrieving baggage easily - obtaining transportation to the next destination,  Did I capture that value stream?
So let's take a look at the process of just getting on the plane.  In order to get on the plane in time for departure, we:
1.  Start boarding 1/2 hour before the flight.  In order to do that, we
2.  Arrive at the boarding area at least 1/2 hour before the flight.  In order to do that, we
3.  Arrive at the screening check gate at least 1/2 hour before that time, guessing how long the lines will be in the waiting lanes.  In order to do that, we
4.  Arrive in the terminal at least 1/2 hour before that time, guessing how long the lines will be in the check-in waiting lanes.  In order to do that, we
5.  Arrive in the parking deck/lot at least 1/2 hour before that time, guessing how full the deck will be and how long it will take to find a parking space, then walk or take the bus to the terminal.  In order to do that, we
6.  Leave our home or office (depending on the distance, of course) with at least an extra half-hour to spare, guessing how many construction or traffic delays will be encountered along the way to the airport.  
That's a lot of non-value-added time!  Now, of course the process has many "short cuts" for those willing to pay for, or arrange for, the extra "priviledge" of a lean experience!
6.  Could use a taxi or limousine service to the airport.
5.  Could park at one of those park-n-go places near the airport, and take the shuttle to the terminal.
4.  Could check-in on-line, to get the boarding pass printed out, and use curb-side check-in for baggage if available.
3.  Buy first-class ticket to go through the security check-points using the "first class" lanes, if available.
2.  Ditto, to board the plane first (extra benefit, have a drink &amp; sit in a comfy seat while watching everyone else file past for half an hour). 
1.  Or, take a chance and try to minimize waiting by arriving just as the boarding ends (might have to accept a certain risk of failure with this strategy, though!).
So how could the airlines/airports make the travel value stream a little less non-value-added?  Doesn't it seem as though the air travel experience could be made a little more lean for those of us who buy airplane tickets?  I'd love to hear from you frequent fliers who've had time to think about this during all those hours of waiting in line! 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 07:09:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The L Word]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_l_word.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That would be "Leadership."  I've been given a definition of leadership that I'd like to discuss with you and ask your opinion about.
The question that was posed to me was, "What is a leader?"
I gave what I thought was a pretty good response - about having a vision, bringing people along in the direction needed to support the vision, and instilling accountability as a management philosophy.
But, I was told that I was wrong.  A leader, I was told, is one who has followers.
So, if followers are appointed or assigned, a person is a leader?  I asked.
Just so, I was told.  And if you don't have followers, then you aren't a leader.
Now, this caused me some ego anxiety, particularly as I am currently self-employed and don't have any assigned followers at the moment.  (Although I've had plenty in the past.)  So, I used to be a leader but now I'm not, but I might be again in the future?
I did a little research on this concept and it turns out that there is a saying, There is one irrefutable definition of a leader, and that is someone people follow.  However, I've seen that attributed to Drucker (seems like he should know what he's talking about), but also to Michael Maccoby (management consultant and author, unfamiliar to me).
It occurred to me that maybe "leadership" is a term like "quality."  You can have good quality, or poor quality.  When we say that we have a quality process, however, we're implying that we have a high-quality process.  (I hope.)  So, for the term "leadership," maybe we're implying "positive leadership."  And, going back to the statement that a leader is someone who has followers, I see that it's a neutral type of definition.  Cult leaders, presidents of countries, Ghandi, front-line supervisors, Hitler - all of them leaders by that definition.
So, maybe I need to be a little more specific when talking about (and answering questions about) leadership.  If anyone has operational definitions or comments that they'd like to share, I'd love to continue my education on this topic!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:20:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Team Dynamics for College Seniors]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/team_dynamics_for_college_seniors.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have the privilege this semester of teaching a "Professional Practice" class for college seniors in Clinical Laboratory Science.  These are the folks who will be doing (among other things) any blood tests that you may have drawn in a doctor's office, hospital, or health fair.
Since I had input into the curriculum, I decided to teach a module on personality preferences, so I could link that to effective team management.  I used the DISC (r) model that is widely available.  You may be familiar with it - there are four categories of behavior preferences.  It's a useful shorthand for understanding one's preferred way of behaving.  I use the model to teach self-awareness, as a bridge to awareness of others (or, as we may say in Lean, respect for people!).
I shared the basic information about the four quadrants, and then asked the class of 25 to divide themselves up into the groups as they saw themselves:  Dominance ("Let's just do it and get it over with!" and "No touchy-feely stuff for me!"), Influence ("Let's hear everyone's great stories!" and "Let's have fun with this!"), Steadiness ("Let's understand why we're doing this, first of all!" and "Let's make sure everyone feels comfortable with this."), and Conscientious ("We need to know that we're making the right decision!" and "If only everyone would just do things the RIGHT way!").
Then, I asked each group to come with ideas for employee recognition, in about 10 minutes.
Lo and behold, I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration!
The Dominance group, about 25% of the class, was done first and had one sticky-note with 5 ideas on it, all related to individual rewards, such as a bonus or preferred parking space.
The Steadiness group, about a third of the class, was done next and had 5 sticky-notes with ideas related to personal rewards and also social rewards - mostly activities with groups that could be shared.
The Conscientious group, about 40% of the class, was not finished by the 10 minute mark; they asked for more time.  They had stopped at their first idea, a certificate of recognition, and their sticky-note had a full paragraph about the wording and appearance of the certificate.
(There was only one "Influencer" so I had her join one of the other groups.)
The students had a lot of fun with this exercise.  They all started comparing their friends and acquaintances, and I reminded them that a) this was a situational-sensitive preference, and everyone displays all of the traits at various times, and b) not to stereotype anyone else!
I thought it was a great opportunity to get students, near the beginning of their profession, to understand a little about personal dynamics when working in groups.  I hope it pays big dividends when they get out into the "real world."
How many of you use a personality-type profile or assessment when your teams are in their forming-norming stages?  Please share your best practices!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:16:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 5S Your Email Out-Box]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/5s_your_email_out_box.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After reading my last post, 5S Your Email In-Box, a couple of colleagues asked whether they could apply 5S to sending emails as well.  Here are the guidelines that I use - I'm sure others have their methods, too, so feel free to share your own best practices!
SORT
1.  Ask yourself, does the recipient really need this email?  What is it that you want them to do with it when they get it?  What makes this email, out of the 250 they will receive today, worthy of their stressed and limited time?  If it's not needed, don't send it.  (But, see the note about thank-you emails below.)
2.  Be careful of cc's (copy-to) and bcc's (blind copies).  Don't add people to the distribution list as a way to let the primary recipient know that you don't trust them to take action, or you're setting up a blame-sharing scenario (trust me, they'll figure this out without you telling them).  And I've been burned by bcc'ing something to which the bcc'd individual responded by hitting reply-all.  Very embarrassing.
3.  Know when to pick up the phone.  For any email with more than 3 back-and-forth volleys, I call the person to finish the conversation.  And some communication just shouldn't be done by email.  You already know that readers can attribute "tone of voice" to email communications, so if you've got something sensitive or confidential to share, do it in person or by phone.
STRAIGHTEN
1.  Help recipients know what you want them to do with the email.  Put it in the title:  Project XXX (please read and provide feedback by Friday).  Status of Team YYY (please respond with any questions).  Action Plan for Department ZZZ (Urgent - Action Needed by End of Business Day).  Meeting Notes from xx/yy/zz (Review and File).
2.  Remember that a lot of folks scan through emails using the Preview function.  Put the most important things in the top 2 or 3 lines of the email, including an executive summary, action requested and deadlines (if not in the title).
3.  If you're sending to more than one person, be very clear if there are specific action items requested of some individuals, versus the expectation that they will read-and-review.
SCRUB
1.  If the email is longer than a couple of paragraphs, consider sending an attachment instead.  Within the email, use bullet points to draw attention to important issues.  Use bolding (sparingly) to draw the eye to essential points or deadlines.
2.  If you are sending an attachment, consider sending the .pdf version to save space.
3.  Review your email before sending it.  Take out any unnecessary verbage - be concise and at the end, close by saying something like "please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about the above."  Trust that your readers will let you know if they need more info.
STANDARDIZE
1.  Many time-management experts think that you should set a certain time aside each day to read and reply to emails.  In the spirit of continuous flow, that doesn't work for me, but only you can decide how to handle your inbox.  Pick a method that works for you, and practice it.
2.  You can sort your sent mail into folders, so you can easily find it again - it's an option you can consider.  Also, did you know that you can drag your sent email into your in-box folders?  That way you can keep all your to-and-from correspondence together, if that works for you.
SUSTAIN
1.  Make up a little email audit form to review when sending email, comprised of the check-points you want to review before you hit send.  Mine looks like this:

Check, do all recipients need this email?  Check cc's.  Phone instead?
Action requested vs review - clear to all recipients?
Concise enough?  Need attachment?
OK to go?
I've been asked about those little "thank you" or acknowledgement emails; some people love them, some think they're a waste of email space.  I love to get them, I appreciate them, I feel warm and fuzzy about them, and then I delete them.
A note about tracking:  To me, it always feels a bit like "Big Brother is watching you" when I get the notice that the sender wants to know when I've read the email.  I use tracking very sparingly; I'd rather set a reasonable timeframe for response and then give the recipient a nudge if they don't get back to me.  But, it's a personal preference; I know some people who track all their emails (just as I know some who flag every email "high importance").
Lastly:  Your email signature / contact info is an essential part of business communication.  Don't just sign "love, Sue" - if someone needs to call you back or fax you a response, it's very frustrating to have to go searching for the information.  The basics include:  Name, title, company, mailing address, phone, fax, email, website if there is one.  Use with caution:  motivational quotes, images that add size to the email, blinking or moving graphics, background stationary, fonts other than web-safe (arial, verdana, courier, times new roman).
Now that I've shared my preferences, I'd love to know what other methods you are using to send emails in a lean manner!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:51:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 5S Your Email In-box]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/5s_your_email_in_box.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I love to open my business email in-box in the morning, don't you?  Especially if you've been practicing good work-life balance and haven't peeked at it since the end of business the day before.  When I go on vacation, it's a special treat.
Here's a 5S strategy that I have used to keep up with the "input."  [Note:  I'm using MS Office terminology since that's what I'm most familiar with - please substitute your own email application terms as you read.]
SORT
1.  If you've been gone a few days, or have LOTS of email to go through, sort the senders by name.  Tackle your boss's emails first, then other VIPs, then go down the list in order of importance to your current task load or priority projects.
2.  Be ruthless.  If you don't need to know it, "red-tag" the item by dragging it over to the "Deleted Items" box.  [Added action:  If you hate getting those cute kitten-pictures and the latest urban rumors from your friends, take 10 seconds to reply to the sender to say tactfully: please don't send them any more.  It's a worthwhile investment, and a true friend will appreciate your need to keep your business in-box for business only.]  
STRAIGHTEN
1.  If you do need to know it, but it's an on-going progress report or something that doesn't need a response, file it immediately under a helpful heading that you will find again.
2.  If you need to take action on an item, you can:  a) Place it in an "action needed by date" folder.  b) Leave it in your inbox as a reminder.  c) See if you can drag it into your Task List - it may convert to a task to which you can add details.  d) See if you can drag it into your calendar - to add it as a calendar item on the day of your choice.  e) Print it and put it in a "to-do" pile.  --The goal is to keep a clear picture of actions that you need to take, in a way that puts you on or ahead of deadline - not frantically searching for the original email when your boss or colleague asks you how you're coming on project X.
SCRUB
1.  Do you archive your emails?  I don't let the computer do it automatically - there are some long-term projects that I need to keep the running history on, all in once place.  When a project is finished, I move the whole folder to archive.
2.  If you email inbox has a restriction on size, you have options:  a) you can save everything to your hard drive or shared drive (open the email, click on FILE then SAVE AS), and then save any attachments to the same place.  There are also applications you can buy or download for free that handle this action.  b) or, at least in MS Office, you can create a .pst file that stores on your hard drive or shared drive, looks just like a folder in your mailbox, and you can store emails there just as you do in your regular mailbox.  Click on FILE, NEW, OUTLOOK DATA FILE.  (Get someone to help you if you have never used this, but after you've done it once it's easy.)  It doesn't usually "count against" your regular mailbox size limitations.  I use this for SENT MAIL since that's what usually kills my in-box size!  For example, SENT-2006, SENT-2007.
STANDARDIZE
1.  There's no one way to organize your folders.  I've seen success with folders by name of sender; week of the month; project name; etc.  A general rule of thumb is to have no more than 3 levels of folders for any one heading - unless you have a perfect memory.  But pick a system and stick with it.
2.  Corollary:  Most of us still use and receive paper in our jobs.  It's a lot easier to find things if your paper filing system matches your email folder structure, so when you try to find your hardcopy master project list for company A in region D related to Widget X, it's under the same paper file folder headings as you would find it if it had been sent electronically.  [Or, get with the new century and scan all documents into your computer, if you have access to a scanner!]
SUSTAIN
1.  Pick a slower-than-usual week, like a holiday week.  Set aside a couple of hours to go through your emails and see what you can archive - what you can discard - what you can file more appropriately.  The investment of time is well worth it.
There are usually many other options in each email system, such as assigning categories to emails or flagging them with various colored flags, that you can delve into as well.
However, the steps above have been helpful for me.  Do any of you have equally effective methods of taming the in-box jungle?  Please share!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:56:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: If Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Prioritized Projects...]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/if_peter_piper_picked_a_peck_of_prioritized_projects.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Which prioritized projects would Peter Piper pick?
I've been asked to speak about project selection at an upcoming symposium.  In doing research for this, I've reviewed articles from iSixSigma and other sources, from both the Six Sigma "ranked project hopper" perspective and the Lean A3 - strategic deployment perspective.  And I've done some project-picking in my time, too, using both those methods. With all the emphasis on data-driven decisions, there's one element that is usually mentioned in passing that may be the most important of all.  And that is... (drum roll please) Which problems are the executive leaders most emotionally driven to resolve?
Even if significant costs can be saved - even if reliability can be improved - even if staffing efficiencies can be realized - in my experience, if the project or deployment champion isn't engaged, you may end up with a beautiful project that won't be sustained.
A trite saying is that "people treasure what their bosses measure."  If one or more leaders is emotionally engaged in a project, they will pester the facilitator and team members.  They will ask for data at inconvenient times.  They will ask whether there are any barriers to be resolved.  They will cheerfully provide resources.  Staff members will know this is important to them, and will respond accordingly.  These leaders will behave in a way that lets everyone know this is important work - they have an obvious commitment to the project and its success.
When leaders are somewhat interested, they may ask questions and be willing to meet, but forward movement is definitely in the realm of the facilitator.  These leaders may be helpful when asked, but they will wait to be asked.  They are pleased to be involved as long as it doesn't take too much effort on their part.
When leaders are not engaged, it's hard to get meeting time with them, and meetings may be frequently postponed or cancelled.  They don't want to be bothered with details about the project.  They only want to know when it's over so they can go back to spending time on their other "more important" activities.
If you've ever led a project, you've seen behavior that falls into one of these categories.  The pain-in-the-butt activist leaders can be the most forward thinking.  The middle-of-the-road hobbyists can be helpful, if always a step behind.  The don't-bother-me-now-can't-you-see-I'm-working types will be happy to take credit once the project is done, but then ignore it to concentrate on other crisis situations.
So I'm suggesting that, while project prioritization matrices and strategic deployment models are great when all of the leaders are equally and emotionally engaged, there may be a simpler method to use when getting started or when engagement is not high across the board.
Have any of you ever selected your project by which executive was most enthusiastic?  It would be great to hear your experiences!
 
p.s.  For those of you detail-oriented folks whose memories are tickled by Peter Piper, it's from the collection of "Mother Goose" rhymes.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:02:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: My Husband the Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/my_husband_the_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I first went to Six Sigma training, I was very enthusiastic about it and shared everything I learned over the dinner table with my family.  I talked about my projects and the tools, my successes and failures.  I always thought they listened politely and then forgot about it.  You know, Mom talking about work AGAIN, yada-yada-blah-blah-blah.
Then one day recently my husband came home and asked me to help him transfer some process maps into an electronic version.  With a team from his workplace, he had facilitated a current state and future state map, and then asked the team to come up with goals for the project.  They included:
- Identify opportunities for flow 
- Eliminate duplicate steps
- Standardize process
- Meet stakeholder requirements
- Ensure that accreditation requirements are met
- Develop metrics for monitoring the process long-term
Now, he had talked about doing an improvement project at work for this particular process, but I hadn't quizzed him on the details.  So I was surprised and pleased that his project incorporated so many elements of the Lean and Six Sigma methods.
"Wow, honey, that's great!" I said.  "You really learned a lot from hearing me talk about my job at the dinner table!"
"Well, not really," he replied, "it's just common sense!"
Now, while his answer was not particularly tactful, I did like it for one reason.  It made me reflect that it would be great to live in a world where utilizing process improvement tools and concepts is "just common sense!" - instead of the resistance-laden, data-poor, time-crunched activity that it sometimes is.
I'll think I'll spend a few moments in that imaginary world, before returning to the next task on my to-do list!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:04:08 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Sensei Certification?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/sensei_certification.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A lot of my conversations recently have centered around certification for lean.  Coming from colleagues who started in Six Sigma as a Green Belt or Black Belt, it seems "natural" that when you add lean facilitation to your skills, you could get certified in lean, too.
But, as I understand it, the traditional path for lean practitioners has been based more on experience and expertise than certification.  The concept of taking a test and getting certified as a lean leader seems not to fit the philosophy as I have learned it (so far!)
Is there a move to create a lean certification, either for facilitators or senseis, similar to the Green Belt / Black Belt / Master Black Belt model?  If so, does it require a project as part of the certification?  And, what is the title that you end up with?
I know there are "lean facilitator" certificates offered by a variety of universities and vendors.  I've even seen an ad for "Lean Six Sigma Sensei" certification.  How about "Lean Greenbelt, Lean Blackbelt, and Lean Masterblackbelt?"  "Lean Expert?"
I'm also starting to see classified ads for positions that read "Master Black Belt / Lean Sensei certification required."
So is there a new push for "Sensei certification?"  Or is that just wishful thinking on the part of people who like to collect letters after their names?Inquiring minds want to know!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:53:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Take me out to the Gemba]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/take_me_out_to_the_gemba.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[By popular demand, words to an old favorite tune that you can use while watching the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, at the Seventh-Inning Stretch:
Take me out to the Gemba
Take me out to the flow!
Find me a Value Stream I can track
I don't want waste to ever come back!
For it's root, root, root out the defects,
Reduce variation even more,
For it's 1-2-3-4-5-6 Sigma we want
On the old shop floor!
 
(With apologies to Jack Norworth who wrote the original words in 1908, and with thanks to Albert Von Tilzer who wrote the tune!)
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:35:41 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The  Lean Six Sigma All-Star Game]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_lean_six_sigma_all_star_game.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As you may know, if you're a baseball fan, Major League Baseball is holding its All-Star Game on July 15 at Yankee Stadium.
You may also know that you can create your own "fantasy" baseball team, on-line, by selecting players and assigning them to your team.  Then, as the statistics build up week after week, the organizers compile the results and figure out who has the best team roster and therefore the best record in stats and games won.
Now, I think we could have a kind of fantasy all-star game of our own, based on outstanding Lean and Six Sigma accomplishments.  What do you think?
THE STARTING LINE-UP
1 Pitcher:  Taiichi Ohno
2 Catcher:  Shigeo Shingo
3 First Base:  Eiji Toyoda
4 Second Base:  Sakichi Toyoda
5 Third Base: Kiichro Toyoda
6 Shortstop:  Genichi Taguchi
7 Left Field:  Bill Smith
8 Center Field:  Jack Welch
9 Right Field:  Bob Galvin
Designated Hitter:  Henry Ford
Manager:  W, Edwards Deming
I'd be interested in hearing whether you'd like any other "team members" to play on your all-star roster!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:17:43 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Educational]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/educational.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I had the privilege recently of helping to teach lean to a group of university leaders.  I had great fun assisting with the first day of class, when we introduced basic lean concepts.  However, when my instructing partner and I looked at our plus-deltas from the day (comments about what the participants valued, and what we should change), there were some sticky-notes saying "too much material" and "went too fast" and "too much to remember."  Even though we had paced the day rather slowly, as I thought, it caused us to wonder whether we needed to restructure the day - or had we just not taught effectively?
On the second day, we got into Value Stream Mapping.  As we went through the material, topics from Day 1 kept popping up, as you would expect.  By repeating the concepts and giving specific, education-based examples, we were able to build a lot of momentum around the purpose and usefulness of Value Stream Mapping.  The plus-deltas on Day 2 showed that most people enjoyed putting the concepts to work around real-life examples.
By Day 3, when we used examples of frustrating processes to create Future State maps, the group was in full swing.  They were coming up with so many ideas to remove waste and reduce delays and hand-offs, that we were hard-pressed to keep them from going right out and implementing their suggestions.  ("Wait, you don't have enough feedback from the front-line workers yet!!!  Remember, it's JUST an exercise!!!")  The evaluation included many "plusses" and only a few "deltas."
What made the difference?  We introduced just as many new concepts the first day as we did the second and the third.  But by incorporating the tools that we'd already introduced, as we brought up new ones, we gave the group practice in "trying on" the lean approach in different ways, and finally we let them loose on real-life examples.
This experience made it clear to me that I shouldn't be judgmental when people need to hear things more than once, in order to incorporate and integrate the concepts.  I've seen many learners become anxious when they're overwhelmed with new terminology; but on the other hand, there are always some "drivers" in the audience who aren't satisfied unless you're covering each slide in about 30 seconds.  It's interesting that each group seems to have its own pace of learning.  In the educators' group, we may have gone a little too fast at first, but then they hit their stride on the second and third days.  It was fun to watch the light bulbs turn on and the enthusiasm kick in!
As usual, for every day that I'm giving instruction, I learn just about as much as I teach.  Hooray for the educational process!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:18:49 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Numb3rs]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/numb3rs.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You don't have to read much of the daily paper, in the US at least, to see data presented in very interesting ways.
"Gas price SKYROCKETS to $4 a gallon!"
"The Dow Jones Industrial Average PLUMMETS to 12,500!"
"Pistons [Basketball Team] Have the EDGE Now!"
"Kid Obesity Rate STEADY"
Now, part of the reason for this hyperbole is that exciting headlines get more people to buy the paper, and so you may think that the exaggeration is just a way to get people to read the accompanying story.
But when you look more closely, the gas price moved from $3.97 the week before; the DJIA had been 12,600 on the previous day, the Pistons were tied 2-2 with the Celtics, and buried in the paragraph about the kids was this statement:  "...it's too soon to know if this really means we're beginning to make meaningful inroads... it may simply be a statistical fluke."
Well, that puts a little different spin on the headlines.  I worry about this for two main reasons.  First, we are all at the mercy of first impressions, and while newspapers need to sell, they sometimes do it by presenting data in a way that is easy to get alarmed over, but not easy to understand (as we project engineers would understand it).  Now, no one expects to see or hear detailed information on how the data was collected, or how the sample size was calculated.  But how many people read the full story in depth?  At least, we should train ourselves (and our kids) to realize when data is being presented as a teaser for the story.  As I put it in my Lean Six Sigma class, "What questions should you ask about how this data was collected?"
The other reason that I worry is that the math that my kids were taught, in their suburban-Detroit high school, had very little to do with real life; they could figure cosines and vectors and the slope of a line, but not how to figure whether a drop of 12,600 to 12,500 was cataclysmic.  I for one would eliminate geometry in favor of a statistics class - including statistical process control, presented with real-life scenarios.  Then readers and viewers and listeners could have an idea about whether data was being presented in a rational way by the news media.
What do you think?  Is data presented in the news in an ALARMING fashion???
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 10:05:08 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Who's Your Jack Welch?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whos_your_jack_welch.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was privileged recently to attend the American Society for Quality's World Conference in Houston, TX.  What an energetic gathering of quality-minded people!
One topic that I heard a lot of conversation about was concern for leadership of Lean and Six Sigma.  There were many stories shared of new deployments, attempted deployments, and failed deployments.  One question that I've been asking, when I hear these accounts, is "Who was your Jack Welch?"  In other words, who was the top executive that championed the initiative over all obstacles?
Too many times, I heard that the push for Lean or Six Sigma came from middle management - not a criticism of those individuals, of course, but if top executives don't catch the fever, then the initiative can be treated as a hobby for someone down below.  When the going gets tough, it's easy to fall back on an excuse such as "Six Sigma's not working for us."  As my MBB Todd Sperl used to say, it's the difference between support and commitment.
Therefore, it was not a big surprise to read, in Michael Marx's recent post Project Failure, that the number one reason for failure of Six Sigma projects was... no management support.  I suspect that could read, instead, no top-level executive support.
So now, when I come into an oragnization that says they're "doing" Six Sigma or Lean, I ask:  "Who's your Jack Welch?"  The answer is always illuminating.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 07:01:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Six Sigma for Healthcare]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_six_sigma_for_healthcare.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Quite a few Black Belts from manufacturing environments have told me, "I don't know anything about healthcare, but my industry is in a downturn so I'm looking for a Black Belt job in a hospital.  I figure I can pick up the lingo once I'm there."
I've also been asked to speak to Industrial and Process Engineers who wanted to learn about healthcare so they could apply for jobs in that sector.
Now, I'm in full agreement that healthcare is a hotbed of opportunity for applying Lean and Six Sigma concepts!  And I applaud people who are willing to step out of their comfort zones to try something in a new area.  So here are some tips for Process Improvement Experts seeking to transition from another industry into healthcare.
Things you should NEVER say when discussing Lean Six Sigma with healthcare providers:
1.  "Even though Lean and Six Sigma were developed in manufacturing environments, it's directly applicable to treating patients - after all, it's just like moving widgets down the assembly line!"  (Trust me - this will be perceived as an insult.)
2.  "Everyone will need to do standard work - there's no room for creativity in healthcare processes!"  (Healthcare workers pride themselves on their ability to solve problems in a creative way - lead them gently into the concept of standard work for individual tasks, first.)
3.  "We'll start by giving everyone three days of training in statistical analysis - let's begin with the nursing staff."  (The most polite thing the nurses will do is roll their eyes - anything that takes them away from providing patient care will be suspect.)
4.  "Patient Registration is an area that's non-value-added."  (Don't tell the finance department, and the caregivers who depend on registration information such as emergency contact numbers, that putting accurate information into the computer system isn't a "vital x" for their functions!)
5.  "Doctors are not customers - they're only providers."  (Whoa!  Physicians need to be treated as co-customers with patients - since doctors order tests and treatments, and interpret them on behalf of their patients - and decide which hospital to admit their patients to!)
So - there's your short course for Lean Six Sigma in Healthcare!  Can you think of anything else that should NEVER be said, in healthcare or other industries???]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:37:12 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Life After Black Belt?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/life_after_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Today's question comes from the realm of business etiquette.  Since I didn't think Miss Manners would have the answer, I'm asking in this forum.
Traditionally, when an organization begins deployment of Six Sigma, "Black Belts" are hired, trained, and certified by their company or an outside vendor.  After some years of service, some Black Belts rotate back out into the world of operations.
When this happens, are you a Black Belt (ret)?  Former Black Belt?  Still a Black Belt, even if it's not still your official title?  If you're certified, do you still put your credentials behind your name?  Or is that just a vanity, if you're not in a Black Belt position?
Inquiring minds want to know!  If you've made the transition from a full-time Black Belt role into a different position, or know someone who has managed this move, please share your opinions &amp; experiences!  
Thanks on behalf of future former Black Belts!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:35:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: House, M.D.]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/house_md.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While flipping around the channels a while ago, I happened to catch an episode of "House."  This show, for those unfamiliar with it, features a physician in a hospital setting.  He's faced with patients who have complex and puzzling disease conditions that he must diagnosis in order to save their lives.  I was intrigued, at first.
But after watching a few episodes, I found the plot of each episode to be similar.  House is confronted with a patient who has puzzling symptoms.  He guesses one diagnosis, and makes his residents do all kinds of diagnostic tests.  Sometimes he treats on the basis of his presumptive diagnosis, and this can lead to complications.  Then, when the first guess doesn't prove correct, he makes another guess and has his residents do lots more diagnostic testing, sometimes invasive.  Again, presumptive treatment may result in adverse effects.  When the puzzle still isn't solved, he tries a third time and (you guessed it) after further diagnostic tests, he hits on the correct solution and now can give the patient the treatment they've needed all along.
This may make for compelling medical drama, but I hope my own physician has a better diagnostic track record than House seems to have.
Upon reflection, I realized that it reminded me about how we improved our business processes before we started to use Lean and Six Sigma.  Often, the leader would guess at what was wrong with a process, come up with a solution, write the memo, and then be surprised when the expected improvement didn't appear.  Sometimes, the process became even less effective.  Then, it was "back to the drawing board" and another solution from the mind of the leader would get published as a memo.  And so on.
I am very happy to have learned a more  effective method for facilitating change in the business (in my case, healthcare) environment.  With leadership commitment, engagement of the front-line workers and stakeholders, setting targets according to the customer's CTQs, analyzing the process in order to create solutions, and using statistical process control to sustain the gains, we can produce positive change that gets the organization closer to where it needs to be to remain competitive.
Will anybody ever pitch a drama to the networks that uses a Lean / Six Sigma Black Belt as its protagonist?  But then, it's not very dramatic to show someone following a proven methodology to create streamlined, effective processes, is it???]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:57:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Achieving Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/achieving_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There's a great quote from Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" that I was thinking of today, in relation to how we teach lean.  The character Malvolio says, "Be not afraid of greatness.  Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em."
So, with apologies to Will...
"Some are born lean, some achieve lean, and some have lean thrust upon 'em."
When our organization started to explore lean methods, we were informed that we would learn by doing.  No classes!  (That sure felt like having lean "thrust upon us" at the time.)  The Toyota way is to teach lean as an integral part of the job, as the tasks are learned.  In our situation, since we weren't "born lean," our sensei taught us tools and concepts throughout the first Rapid Improvement Event.  When we asked how we could learn to lead events ourselves, we were told that we would have to do hundreds of events before we could consider ourselves to be senseis.
Well, I confess - we didn't listen.  We incorporated lean concepts and tools into our classes and taught our leaders lean right along with Six Sigma.  We even renamed our Green Belts as Lean Green Belts.  We started running our own events and had many successes - some failures, but with overall effectiveness.
So although we weren't born lean, we seem to have figured out how to work toward achieving lean.
The question that I'm pondering is, how do other organizations approach this issue?  Do you teach lean concepts and tools to your employees in a classroom setting?  Or do you espouse the "learn-by-doing" philosophy?  I'm interested to find out what has worked for you.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:18:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean?  or Mean?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_or_mean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was privileged to speak at a conference in San Francisco last weekend, sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Pathology.  The topics focused on leadership in the clinical (medical) laboratory.  After giving a presentation on 6S, I served as a panel member for questions submitted from the audience.  One of the questions asked, "What can we do when our leadership tells us we have to do Lean Six Sigma so we can cut employees from the payroll?"
Our panel, in an unrehearsed answer, all chimed in:  "That's not Lean, that's Mean!!!"
Although some hospitals have been using Lean and Six Sigma for the past several years, it's still relatively new in healthcare.  With the threat of decreasing reimbursements from national and private healthcare insurers, and increasing demand for services, you might think lean was a natural fit for improving quality while decreasing costs.  However, there were many at the conference who had experience of consultants offering to prove that they could use Lean and/or Six Sigma to decrease "the payroll burden."  In those cases, quality seemed to take a back seat to so-called productivity.
Now, my lean training didn't come directly from a Toyota sensei, but I've been informed that, at Toyota, the Toyota Production System is not used to generate layoffs; that the employees who are no longer needed in a certain part of the organization are redeployed, with some becoming dedicated to full-time quality/process improvement.
Can I ask our expert readers to weigh in on this?  What should our response be, when confronted by consultants who sell Lean (and Six Sigma) as a way to cut the payroll?  Or am I hopelessly naive, in today's environment, to think that we can retain "respect for people" as an aspect of any process improvement methodology?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:02:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Speaking of Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/speaking_of_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I'm asked to do a presentation, for corporate training or national conferences, I always try to present in a style that reflects how we practice lean six sigma.
How do you gain buy-in in any change process?  By having the group participate in the discussion or decision!  So, I add interactive segments into my presentations wherever possible.
At one conference I was caught by surprise - I thought my presentation was scheduled for 40 minutes and made my slides accordingly, but when I arrived and checked the official schedule, my time slot said 75 minutes.  Oops!  I'd already submitted my slides months before, with timing that allowed for some interactive Q&amp;A during the talk, and the handouts were already published.  What could I to a) fill the time slot while b) using the 40-minute slides I'd prepared and c) looking as if it was planned that way all along?
I decided to add interactive segments in addition to the pre-planned Q&amp;A sections.  After each part of the presentation, which focused on using 6S in the clinical (hospital) laboratory setting, I asked participants to "buddy up" in twos or threes to discuss what issues they had in their labs related to each S.  It turned out that almost every lab had a "junk room" (the better to practice sorting), cabinets and drawers that weren't labeled (the better to practice straightening), etc.  After each buddy session, I would ask the group for examples of what had been discussed.  These worthwhile conversations had the effect of energizing the group, made the time fly (and I ended right on time), and as an added bonus, my talk received high scores on the evaluation form.  I was even invited to give the presentation again at this year's conference.
Do you use a similar tactic when giving a presentation or training?  I'd love to learn about more examples from our expert speakers and trainers out there!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:48:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Is a Wait Always a Waste???]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/is_a_wait_always_a_waste.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In healthcare, we are definitely trying to speed things up for our patients.  Billboards around our area (and maybe, around the country) promise 30 minute door-to-doc time in their Emergency Departments (EDs).  One promises no waiting to be seen by a healthcare professional!  Mini-offices are springing up in chain pharmacies, promising no waiting for minor problems.  One health system promises a "money-back" guarantee if you have an "excessive wait time."
But there are still some things in healthcare that you have to wait for, with good reason.  When you receive a medication, sometimes you have to wait for it to take effect.  If you receive a breathing treatment, it may take awhile to breathe a little easier.  When you have surgery, you usually have to wait for some healing to occur before you are sent home - even if everything else is ready for the patient to be discharged and all other medical tasks have been completed.
In these cases, the waiting periods can't be made faster - they're processes, but not processes over which we have control.  When mapping these timeframes in a lean value stream map, are they automatically wastes?  Or something else?
In the automotive industry, it takes a certain amount of time for paint to dry, but you can work on faster-drying paint.  When you are working on a process that has a wait time required for a patient to heal up, should you just skip over that part and work on a different part of the value stream?I'd like to know your thoughts on that matter, and thanks in advance for helping to clarify my thinking!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:31:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Control Phase for Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_control_phase_for_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My healthcare organization uses a version of Lean Six Sigma that may be familiar to some of you.
First, project definition through hoshin kanri (enterprise value stream mapping and value stream analysis).
Define - VOC, CTQs, and performance specifications.
Measure - Value Stream Mapping with analysis of data.
Analyze - Waste Walk, Spaghetti Mapping, and statistical analysis where appropriate.
Lean - Improvenent through Rapid Improvement or Kaizen events
Control/Sustain - Accountability for the WWW and weekly Process Owner meetings to ensure that the new process is stable and meeting targets.
The last phase is usually found to be the hardest.  We've gone through several evolutions trying to find the best way to follow up on projects, bearing in mind the resources needed to continually collect data and also the need to help Process Owners and Black Belts stay sane.
Early learning:  don't get carried away in the control phase with identifying data collection at every process step.  Select the 2 - 5 key variables to monitor; Process Owners are not going to be able to maintain a 25-point data collection plan in an environment where all data is manually collected from charts, paper records, or computer files.
Also:  use more than one method to track success.  We started with the dashboard approach - red, yellow, green - and found that some people tended to make snap judgments about the success or failure of a project.  We now combine the dashboard with a trend analysis to show ongoing improvement after the rapid improvement event.
Are there any more learnings that you would like to share from your own organization, to help your improved processes to sustain their gains?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:59:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean on Me]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_on_me.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We graduated another Lean Six Sigma class last week.  Our version of Lean Six Sigma is based on the DMAIC structure and Lean tools that works well in our healthcare organization, and this was our 8th class since October 2006.
Just before we handed out the certificates for course completion, the hospital President who took the class said, "I have an activity that I'd like to do at this point."  Of course I said, sure!  I thought he wanted to give the class a little pep talk about completing the course or something similar.
It turned out that he modified the lyrics to the Bill Withers song, and sang them with the class of 45 providing the chorus.  Sample -
When - you get turned down - at a wedding for the Poke Yoke dance, LEAN ON ME
When - your spouse or significant other - drives you to your upper control limit, LEAN ON ME
If - you think the black belts have invited you to an Italian dinner - and you find it's spaghetti mapping, LEAN ON ME
If - you think you're going to meet Leonard Nimoy - and all you get is a SIPOC, LEAN ON ME
There were about 15 more verses.  Needless to say, the entire class went into hysterics of laughter.  The fact that one of our hospital Presidents had taken the time to put Lean Six Sigma lyrics to a song - and then sing it to the class - spoke volumes about his commitment, and engaged the entire group in a way that was meaningful to all.  And, a lot of fun as well!
President Joe Tasse of St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital made our certificate ceremony one that will stay in our memories for a long time!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:38:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 5S in Translation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/5s_in_translation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[5S is one of the foundation concepts of lean.  The Japanese originals were:  Seiri, Seiton, Seiso, Seiketsu, Shetsuke.  (Additional S's such as Safety or Security are sometimes added.)  I did a quick survey on-line to see what variations are out there.

Sort - Straighten - Scrub - Standardize - Sustain
Separate - Sort - Shine - Schedule - Self Discipline
Sort Out - Straighten - Spic&amp;Span - Systematize - Sustain
Sorting - Simplify - Systematic Cleaning - Standards - Sustaining
And the non-alliterative translations:

Housekeeping - Workplace Organization - Cleanup - Cleanliness - Discipline
Organization - Orderliness - Cleanliness - Standardized Cleanup - Discipline
Put things in order - Proper arrangement - Clean - Purity - Commitment
Tidiness - Orderliness - Cleanliness - Standardization - Discipline
Clearing up - Organizing - Cleaning - Standardizing - Self Discipline
Disposal - Arrangement - Cleanliness-System Methodology-Disciplined Culture
And the related 5C's (from Wikipedia):

Cleanout &amp; Classify - Configure - Clean &amp; Check - Conformity - Custom and Practice
And of course, there are Anti-5S acronyms as well:

Scrounge, Steal, Stash, Scramble, and Search
Stagnate, Scatter, Sandbag, Scapegoat, and Sabotage
We know it really doesn't matter what phrase we use, as long as we actually follow the 5S principles!  Do you use a different translation for 5S?  It would be interesting to see other variants!
[Note:  The preferred spelling of Shetsuke has an "i" as its third letter, but the editing software substituted @#$% for the first syllable when I spelled it that way!]]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:09:48 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Miracle on 3.4th Street]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/miracle_on_34th_street.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(Movie Review - WARNING!  May contain spoilers...)
At the beginning of the movie, the Santa Claus who is scheduled to appear in the Thanksgiving Day Parade is found to have significant defects.  He is replaced with a worker who seems to utilize standard work, Sensei Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn).  The new Sensei yields improved results for the corporation, Macy’s, based in New York City.  The replacement worker, who has a consistent approach to his work in alignment with organizational goals, finds that some other employees don’t believe that his lean six sigma approach can be successful.  Taking this as a challenge to persuade and educate, Sensei Kringle embarks on a series of efforts to transform the perception of others who he meets through his new job (Maureen O’Hara, John Payne, Natalie Wood).
Sensei Kringle runs into trouble, however, when he takes a so-called "employment test" with an interpretation based on opinion, not fact.  The leader who gives the test, a Mr. Sawyer, demonstrates many of the Eight Wastes and seems intent on ruining Sensei Kringle’s efforts towards lean transformation.
In order to minimize the waste of transportation and motion between his home and the Macy’s department store, the Sensei is invited to room with lawyer Fred Gailey (Payne), Sensei Kringle works with Mrs. Doris Walker and her daughter Susan who live in the next apartment.    Susan especially begins to appreciate the core tenets of continuous incremental improvement, although she and her mother still harbor some doubts about its overall effectiveness.  While discussing Voice of the Customer and Critical-to-Quality issues, the young girl asks for proof of lean’s effectiveness, which Sensei Kringle promises to develop (although it’s a tall order in the short lead time left before the holiday).
When provoked by Mr. Sawyer’s incompetence, Sensei Kringle loses his temper and implements a point kaizen on Mr. Sawyer’s head.  Taken to the nearby Bellevue mental hospital, the Sensei deliberately flunks his mental competency test in despair that he will ever get anyone to buy into lean six sigma concepts.
When the Sensei’s cause is taken up by Fred Gailey, the competency hearing becomes very interesting as the judge in the case asks them to prove that the Sensei is really who he says he is.  Finally vindicated by no less an authority than the U. S. Postal Service, which has been using lean concepts for some time, Sensei Kringle is declared sane and free to go on Christmas Eve.
After the next day’s Christmas party, Sensei Kringle gives Mr. Gailey, Mrs. Walker, and her daughter Susan special value-enabling directions to take while driving home.  Susan is astonished when she sees her special wish for proof of lean’s effectiveness appear right before her eyes - a small Cape Cod home that’s a model of value-added design.  She immediately declares that it exceeds her specification limits.
Fred Gailey and Doris Walker realize that their future lies together using lean six sigma, Susan goes out into the back yard to investigate the swing set, and Mr. Gailey congratulates himself on being such a good lawyer and process owner for getting Sensei Kringle off the hook.  Suddenly they spy in one corner the Sensei’s cane - was it just a case of effective project management, or was Sensei Kringle a lean transformation expert after all???
 
(For those of you who somehow have not seen "Miracle on 34th Street," I highly recommend the 1947 original black ad white version.  Happy holidays!)
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:57:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Team Excellence]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/team_excellence.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have had the fortune to serve twice on the ASQ's International Team Excellence Awards judging panel.  It's not the entries that I want to talk about, but the experience of serving on the panel.
The details of the competition and the criteria are posted on the ASQ website, www.asq.org.  When I volunteered to serve as a judge, I was looking for a professional development opportunity - and to be honest, to try to understand the criteria fully in case we ever wanted to submit a team ourselves.
The criteria are very clearly spelled out - and during breaks in our judges' training session, I started to think about our own teams.  My organization has done quite a few Lean Rapid Improvement Events and Six Sigma projects.  And the very first criteria had me questioning whether we couldn't improve the quality of our own teams by using the criteria as guidelines - not rules to slavishly follow, but issues to check as we moved forward with our future teams.
1.  Explain the methods used to choose the project.
     a.  Describe the types of data and quality tools used to select the project, and why they were used.
     b.  Explain the reasons why the project was selected.
     c.  Describe the involvement of potential stakeholders in project selection.
In the past, we didn't involve our stakeholders in project selection.  Now, you may be laughing because you have ALWAYS involved your stakeholders, but when we started we just picked the topics that people complained about the most.  As we have moved from a project-based approach to a philosophy of Lean Six Sigma in operations, we have gotten better at this, but it was definitely something we had to learn to do!
So in addition to finding out how to use the criteria to judge the team entries, I took home a new appreciation for just how many areas we need to focus on to ensure a good team experience, as well as a good project outcome.
I encourage team leaders to check the criteria, if they haven't already, to see whether some of the items could be helpful in guiding your next project endeavor.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:12:41 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Feedback, Schmeedback]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/feedback_schmeedback.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When my fellow Black Belts and I facilitate, or teach, we ask the participants to give us feedback at the end of each session.  We use the plus-delta format that we inherited from our original consultants, by dividing a flip-chart page into two columns for the "plusses" (things that worked well, were meaningful, or strengths) and the "deltas" (things that didn't work well, could be improved, or were weaknesses.
By now, we've collected so many of these plus-delta flip charts that we can almost predict the outcomes on both sides.  Plusses are things like fast pace, kept to schedule, good exercises, good team interaction, the food.  Deltas are things like room too hot, room too cold, could have been done in a shorter time, needed more time, the food.
Initially, the plus-deltas were very informative and we learned a lot about what participants liked and disliked.  Many of us modified our style based on the feedback, and we made revisions to the structure of our classes and the presentations in our project meetings.
After all this time, it's tempting to say, "I know what will come up on the plus-delta so I'm not going to bother to do them any more."
There are still a couple of good reasons to keep doing the plus-deltas, though.
One is, that asking for feedback and comments is a team-building activity, especially when we return the favor in the next session and talk about the comments (without defending or excusing as a form of response!).
Another is, that even in the midst of the familiar feedback, there may be a grain or two of truth to be gleaned that no-one else has thought to mention.  If we didn't ask for the participants' thoughts, we might miss an insight into something that could have a major beneficial impact as a result.
Also, we as facilitators should practice what we preach.  "Don't assume that you know what your customers want without asking them!"  So we should model the behavior.
A last comment - now that we can, in most cases, guess what most of the comments will be, we are trying to improve our quality by asking for the comments "in real time."  For example, giving us a delta that there were too many sidebar conversations, at the end of the day, can't help us to correct that situation.  So now we may make a suggestion at the beginning of the session that if a team member has any feedback about the content, pace, or team interaction, that the comment or suggestion be shared right away.  In this way, we can get consensus from the team about the need to adapt, and we can solve any problem quickly before it distracts other people on the team.
We still plan to continue using the plus-deltas; looking on them as a source of VOC has helped us to realize their on-going value.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:57:49 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Pause that Refreshes?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_pause_that_refreshes.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Some of our Black Belts were talking the other day about how many projects they've got going, and (in spite of focusing our projects on specific value streams) how they sometimes feel pretty fragmented, getting pulled from project to project.
We discussed whether it would be reasonable to pause for a short while, to ensure that project follow-up is being completed and all the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted, within a particular value stream or project area.Our Black Belts are training our Process Owners as we go - project by project - and sometimes the POs need extra help to get the data collection and monitoring going.  In our healthcare organization, much of the data is collected manually by chart review or observation, so it's a little more cumbersome than pulling reports off of the computer (although, granted, that has its own MSA issues!).
We've been pushing the Black Belts to complete a certain number of projects each month, and sometimes it seems as if the goal of quantity is overshadowing that of quality.
I wonder whether this same feeling is familiar to Black Belts at other organizations, or are we unique?
I'd appreciate any comments you'd like to share!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:09:45 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Six Sigma Project #1031]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_six_sigma_project_1031.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To:  Executive Sponsor
From:  Six Sigma Black Belt
Re:  Lean Six Sigma Project #1031
Our Define Report-Out is now ready for presentation.  This memo serves as an executive summary for your review.
Customers:  Children (primary), Parents (indirect)
Problem Statement:  Too many children in the United States receive Halloween candy in a way that is unpredictable.  Too much candy leads to inventory waste, while too little leads to sugar deprivation (a significant clinical condition).  An excessive candy supply may also lead to chocolate overdose or, worse, hard-candy-cavity syndrome.
Project Description:  Decrease variability in the amount and types of candy collected on Halloween.
Project Scope:  In scope - Children in costume on the night of October 31 between the ages of 2 and 12 living in the Detroit Metropoliltan area (map included in full R0).  Out of scope:  Teenagers, adults, babies younger than 2 years of age, children who don’t participate in trick-or-treating.
Alignment with strategic plan:  The two areas that will benefit most are efficiency and growth.
CTQ Expectations:  Children who go trick-or-treating on Halloween have two key expectations (per VOC survey).  1) At least 5 pounds of candy collected over the course of the evening (however this is the type of target where more is better).  2) A wide variety of chocolate, hard, and soft candies in approximately equal proportions.  (Note: Non-candy items such as pennies, apples, or trinkets are usually NOT appreciated.)  Therefore the Y to measure will be a) net weight of all candy items including wrappers and b) equality of candy among  four categories (those mentioned above plus a miscellaneous category).
Project Goal:  Improvement in the amount (weight) of candy collected and variety (distribution) of candy collected by at least 50% for 90% of the children who go trick-or-treating in the Detroit Metro area.
High level process map (from SIPOC):  Child is dressed in costume with collection bag - Parents convey child to location(s) for trick-or-treating - Child collects candy - Child and parents return home - Child consumes candy (Optional last step:  Child becomes ill).
Lean, Six Sigma, and Change Management approach:  There are many wastes to be observed in this process, therefore the project team will use Lean tools as a primary approach.  Transportation, Motion, Inventory, and in some cases Overprocessing are prevalent.  The Improve phase many utilize a Rapid Improvement Event (Kaizen Event), although data will be collected for statistical analysis as well.
The full R0 will be presented at our next Lean Six Sigma Report-Out next week.  Please feel free to share any comments or suggestions about this executive summary.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:15:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Hands of the Customer]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/hands_of_the_customer.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We're used to seeking the Voice of the Customer in the Define phase of our projects.  Typically (at least at our organization) we haven't asked, "How much of this process can we pass on to you?"
This topic usually comes up when we teach a lean exercise in which the Voice of the Customer is supposed to rule.  We use a scenario where we prepare trays of beverages in cups for our customer.  The cups must be placed into the trays, a lid attached, and an unwrapped straw inserted.  The longest step (which we use to teach takt time and level loading) is always the straws - unwrapping them and placing them into the lids takes the greatest effort.  Someone usually says, "Why can't we make the customer do it - just like [insert favorite fast-food restaurant name here]?"
We have a great conversation about this - how pass-on-to-the customer has worked for beverages, because usually it's a win for us as customers.  We can mix-n-match our drinks, add just the right amount of ice, and even get a refill before going out the door.  And, it gives us something to do while we're waiting.  When wouldn't it work?  With a mobility-limited customer, maybe.  In any case, the question prompts a good discussion.
In healthcare, we're trying out some of these scenarios in a variety of ways - self-registration over the internet, for example.  We can also envision asking patients to select their dietary needs on a computer, self-schedule inpatient X-rays, or (given a medication schedule) check with their care-givers if they think they're missing a dose of their meds.
We haven't asked the specific question, "How much of the process do you want to do yourself?" - yet - but maybe we should add this to our usual VOC questionnaire.
What do you think?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:08:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Voice of the Customer]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voice_of_the_customer.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like many organizations, ours began their Six Sigma deployment with a consultant-based training and project mentorship.  We were successful at internalizing the training, and we've used a value-stream approach to selecting improvement projects, but the process owners never seemed to be the ones to light the fire - most wait to be tapped on the shoulder and told there was a project planned in their area.  We realized that we were in danger of having a passive, Black-Belt-driven approach become our standard.
Through a lot of discussion by our Master Black Belt to bring that issue to our leaders' attention, we've redesigned our Green Belt coursework to focus on tools for improvements that process owners can do even outside of a formal project structure (although we teach that too!).  
To build on that, our CEO recently gave a new challenge to our leaders.  For their annual performance goals, each leader was asked to determine the "voice of the customer" for their area of responsibility and then to implement a change based on the customers' needs, where targets were not being met.
WOW!  All of a sudden, all those lectures on VOC and CTQs became important to remember - leaders didn't have the luxury of waiting for a Black Belt to appear with a project idea.  Most leaders began to get actively engaged in seeking out customer feedback.  Many had relied on customer-survey scores without delving deeper into the 5 why's, or had relied on occasional feedback rather than active communication.  Now the area of Operational Improvement looms a lot larger in their annual performance evaluation goal-setting.
As many surveys have shown, executive engagement and commitment is one of the make-or-breaks of successful deployment.  We are fortunate to be in the "plus column" in this area.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:25:02 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Project Management Expertise]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/project_management_expertise.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A fellow Black Belt and I were talking about project management skills.  She made a very perceptive comment, which I will paraphrase:
"Some people are really good at setting up a project - the ability to identify needed tasks, sources of benchmarking information, delegating, putting everything into a timeframe.  And others are really good about implementing change - they can work with people to visualize the future state, dissolve resistance and facilitate through the sometimes-chaotic change process to arrive at a successful new process.  Ideally of course, you would have both sets of skills."
I think that I can do the first part pretty well - but I most enjoy helping people to see that they can change their environment in a positive and productive way.
It reminded me of an interview question I once fielded about which DMAIC phase was my favorite.  Not which one was I best at - but which one I enjoyed the most.  My answer was "Define" - helping people see the customer expectations and opening up the possibility of changing to a future state in which both the customer and the employees were better off.
Of course, that doesn't mean I can slack off on the other phases!!!
What about you, dear reader - do you have a favorite phase or part of project management?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:56:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Black Belt Ranks]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/black_belt_ranks.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the martial arts, you may know that once a person obtains a black belt there are usually levels of progression upwards.  Each of these levels is called a "dan" and there can be 3 or more progressive levels, sometimes designated with a stripe or tape around the end of the black belt.
We've taken that concept as a beginning for a career development plan for Black Belts.  We ask for a 2 - 3 year commitment as part of our hiring process, and hire new Black Belts at a "novice" level if they have not previously been certified as a Black Belt elsewhere.  After training and internal certification, and meeting other organizational requirements, they are promoted to "practitioner" level.
At this point, we start discussing possible future paths:  Continued learning in project management and expanding the focus of the projects; or possibly going back into operations and a Green Belt level of participation; or possibly upwards to incorporate more teaching and mentoring.  In the last case, the level is called "sensei" and can be obtained through a number of ways, demonstrating effectiveness in project management, teaching of our Operational Excellence courses, and formal mentoring programs.
Each of these levels has a salary band within the Black Belt wage range, and the promotion process includes preparation of a portfolio to be presented to a group of executives who will consider the appropriateness of the promotion.
We've put this structure together in the last several months, and will be setting up the first portfolio reviews this fall.
I'm working whether there are any other Black Belt level concepts, like this one, being used "out there?"  If so, please share!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:44:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Green Around the Gills]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/green_around_the_gills.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While reading Gianna Clark's blog below, "Green Belt Sonic Boom," my first reaction was:  Great minds think alike!  We are in the starting phase of a boom of training, and all of Gianna's caveats are valuable.
Last year in October, our healthcare system started our internal training of Green Belts with a class of 40.  We planned to start courses in the fall, winter, and summer of each year.  The course includes 8 days of training, usually scheduled as 2 days each month, followed by a training project which is a requirement for certification.
The first and second classes went well.  Then the flywheel started to catch, and we were asked to start an additional class in April of this year.  By the end of this class, we had 100 Green Belts who had completed the training!  But, only 3 had become certified so far.  We had a discussion about what we would do if the number of Green Belts exceeded our ability to place them in training projects.  Our support structure includes an Executive Sponsor at each of our hospital sites and a few other Operating Units; 13 Six Sigma Black Belts deployed around the system, and our Master Black Belt who coordinates the deployment.  We have developed a schedule for projects using a Value Stream approach, and each Operating unit is active in 1 - 3 Value Streams at this time.
This June, our CEO announced that it would be an expectation for all leaders in the organization to become Green Belts.  The summer and fall classes quickly filled up.  One of our site Presidents asked for 2 additional sessions, in the summer and fall, so that all of her leaders could complete this requirement by December 2007.
Then another site Manager asked to have a session at her site in the fall.  At this rate, as of December 2007, we will have "graduated" 250 Green Belts, of whom 3 (so far) have completed certification.  (We also have about 50 Green Belts who completed DMAIC projects during the time that GE was providing our deployment training.)
So what can we do with all of these Green Belts, if we don't have enough projects for them after they complete the training? 
As of this summer, we have broadened our training, and renamed the course as Lean Management.  In addition to learning the DMAIC tools and structure, plus lean tools and approach, we are teaching about how to use these concepts to become Lean Six Sigma Managers as well as facilitators of improvement projects.  We give assignments during the course, to ensure that they use the basic tools, and there is a final (open book) exam at the end that we use as an educational capstone to the coursework.  We think that the move to Lean Six Sigma management of daily processes is something that will keep them engaged, whether or not they are involved in projects.
In parallel with these developments, we are working with our WorkLife Services department (human resources) to add language to our leadership performance expectations about using the tools and concepts in their daily operations, and about expectations for facilitation of improvement projects.  There is also some discussion about whether Green Belt certification should be a factor (or requirement) for internal promotions.
So:  Should we continue to offer Green Belt classes, until we have trained all of our 1000 leaders?  Should we call a halt until more of the Green Belts obtain their formal certification?  If all leaders are using Lean Six Sigma tools and concepts in their daily operations, is that more important - or less important - or equally important - when compared to formal certification and assignment to facilitate projects?
We're talking about all of those issues at our organization.  Thanks Gianna for your very pertinent comments on this topic!
How about the rest of you?  How have you dealt with the growth in your Green Belt ranks?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:44:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Little Motivation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_little_motivation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When our organization started its Six Sigma deployment back in 2004, we designed a small round pin that was given to certified Change Agents, Yellow Belts, Green Belts, and Black Belts.  The pins are gold-backed and have the appropriate color (blue for Change Agents) around the outer rim, with the appropriate certification title, and our health system logo in the middle.  At first people thought they were cute and some people wore them while others didn't.
Now, a couple of years later, "the pin" has become highly valued.  Associates who are awarded certification must complete training and a project for all levels; and I am receiving many inquiries about whether people are eligible for a pin.  Those who receive pins tend to wear them - not only their highest certification, but all the others too!  
I'm not down-hearted about people focusing on the pin, because I know they have had to demonstrate their competence in order to get one.  I'm happy to tell them which classes to take and inform them of the required project.  Most are eager to complete the requirements.  The pins and certificate are awarded at operating unit leadership meetings for a very public recognition ceremony.
It's a small thing, but very meaningful.
Another small thing that means a lot is our badge pulls.  These are handy little devices that clip onto your collar or pocket, and have a retractable string that attaches to your ID badge.  You can pull the badge away from the holder in order to swipe into a card-reader to gain access to an office or parking lot, without having to unclip the badge holder from your clothing.  We ordered black pulls for our BBs and green pulls for our GBs.  The shipment came in a couple of weeks ago, and we handed out the first pulls yesterday as we concluded a two-day Define session.
Today I received a lot of requests from the GBs who had formerly taken the class - "Hey I saw those green badge pulls, how come we didn't get them and when can I get mine?!?!?"  The badge pulls generated a lot of interest from everyone.
Certification pins - about $25 each.  Colored badge pulls - about $1.20 each.  Motivation, excitement, enthusiasm, feeling of being part of a special group...
Priceless.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:45:48 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Black Belt Humor]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/black_belt_humor.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I’m sure I’m not the only Black Belt who has conversations like these:
Someone coming to a meeting in the BB office/cubicle area for the first time: "Wow, I’ve never been to your office before.  It’s not very... 6S’d, is it? Ha ha!"
Team member, at a meeting:  "Boy, I thought you Black Belts were always supposed to be on time... 100% yield rate, ha ha!"
Team member, during brainstorming:  "Well, let’s hear from the Black Belt now, you’re supposed to have all the answers, aren’t you?  Ha ha!"
Significant other:  "Honey, where are the car keys?  Aren’t you supposed to have standard work or something for where you put them?  Ha ha!"
Now, none of these jokes would play very well at your local Comedy Castle, but people sure seem to think they’re the soul of wit when they come up with these gems.
It reminds me of when I was working in a bookstore for a while, while I was laid off from a previous organization.  The first time the books didn’t scan, I heard, "Well that means I get them for free, doesn’t it?" - Which was moderately humorous.  The second, third, and thousandth time, it didn’t seem so funny.
So, it looks like the only thing we BBs can do, other than become Supermen and Superwomen, is to come up with our own brand of Black Belt Humor.  Gary Cox does a great job helping us see the lighter side of our improvement efforts.  Now, all we need is our own Rodney Dangerfield to give the rest of us some good lines!  Any volunteers???]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 06:53:55 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Pieces of the Puzzle]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/pieces_of_the_puzzle.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our organization's Black Belts recently participated in a two-day retreat in which we did some team-building and strategy work for the upcoming fiscal year.  We did a leadership profile that diagnoses each person's preferred approach.  The four main styles are generalized as Driver, Conscientious, Steady, and Interactive.  I'm sure that the profile is similar to many others out there!
The interesting thing is that, among our 16 Black Belts, the preferences came out as follows:  4 Drivers, 5 Conscientious, 6 Interactive, 1 Steady.  We had fun dividing into our main groups (we included our one S with our 5 C's for this purpose).  Each group came up with a theme:  The D's chose "Get 'er Done," the I's (a fun-loving group to be sure) came up with "I Candy," and the combined C/S group selected "A person with a problem and no data is just another person with an opinion."  Our education coordinator is a D, our "data guru" is a C, and our Master Black Belt is an I.
We then re-divided into our site-based teams.  We had a few "aha" moments in this part of the exercise.  We didn't use leadership preferences, or any kind of a personality profile, when selecting our Black Belt candidates.  Yet, there was a very healthy diversity among our site teams.  Almost all had a blend of personality preferences, as well as a pretty even split between male/female, healthcare/process engineer, younger/older (or you may prefer "seasoned), inexperienced/experienced.  We also thought about our different site organizational cultures in terms of trying to bring about change.
It's easy to view personality tests as having the same entertainment value as horoscopes - but in our case, the process led to some solid team building and a helpful introspection on how we approach our Black Belt roles.  We found a new appreciation in each other's strengths and contributions to the team, and were reminded that individually, we're pieces of the puzzle and we need to work together to get the whole picture!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 19:27:13 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Standard Work in LSS]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/standard_work_in_lss.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Reading Robin Barnwell's lastest post, I was reminded of a conversation I had recently regarding standard work in our own projects.  When our Black Belts share their experiences, it's really interesting to see how parts of the project structure are valued differently by each individual.  
Let me give you an example.  We have a guideline for rapid improvement (kaizen) events that says we should be doing a risk assessment of the new (future state) process on Day 4 of the 5-day event.  Some BBs are doing this and say it works fine at that point.  Other BBs say that's too late - you should do a risk assessment on Day 2 when you're creating the solution - so you can foresee problems and address them as you're creating your new standard work.  Also, the guideline says we should do an FMEA - Failure Mode Effects Analysis - but some BBs say that's too complicated for most teams when you're dealing with over 100 process steps.  One team in a past project spent almost 8 hours trying faithfully to complete the FMEA as directed, for every process step, since they thought that's what they needed to do.  So some BBs are using a simplified risk assessment form or other contingency planning tool that worked for them in a previous life.
I'd be very interested in anyone's opinion on  how far is too far, when "adapting" project methodology standards or guidelines to a particular situation.  Should a strict standard be enforced - we're supposed to be modeling standard work, after all - or would this result in such an inflexible approach that we might jeopardize the result of a particular project?  Would we be hampering the BB's ability to use his/her own judgment in a situation that calls for compromise?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:22:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Belt Mania]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/belt_mania.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've been having some conversations about belts with my colleagues.  Officially, we have "Lean Green Belts" (learn Lean Six Sigma basics, facilitate Lean Kaizen events) and "Six Sigma Black Belts" (know both Lean &amp; Six Sigma, facilitate Lean &amp; Six Sigma projects, coach &amp; mentor Green Belts).
We had "Yellow Belts" for a while - Six Sigma team members who received basic training to make them more effective in their team roles.  We haven't been using this designation for our Lean team members; they don't receive any classroom instruction - only "on the gemba" training!
We're throwing around some ideas about whether we should change our approach.  The discussion so far:
Adding color belts:  Boy, it seems like everyone wants a belt so they will have a special designation of their own.  We could add White Belt designation for team participants and then give them a Yellow Belt when they've completed 5 - or 10 - or whatever.  We could add a Brown Belt designation for leaders who have passed a Lean Management course but don't actually lead projects.  Plenty of other colors left in the rainbow - we can even make up one of those neat laminated badges to wear behind our IDs to remind us of what color belt does what!
Changing criteria:  Oh man, do we REALLY have to do projects in order to get Green Belt certification?  Can't I be a Black Belt while staying in my job role?  There is a pretty constant push to revise our philosophy around these points.  So far, we have stayed firm - Yes, and No.
Doing away with belts:  What about guides, facilitators, change agents, change leaders, lean leaders, navigators, senseis, masters, etc.?  We would keep the criteria - just rename everyone.  My suggestion:  Green Belts become Padawan Learners and Black Belts become Jedi Knights.
Sticking to just Green Belt and Black Belt:  Well, it's tried and true.  Although we should always be open to new ideas, we've only been at this for three years, so maybe it's too soon to be changing everything around?  Let's stay the course for a while longer.
Our organization hasn't made any decisions to change - yet - but I thought I would write about this moment in our Lean Six Sigma journey to see if anyone else has had, or is having, similar discussions!
Would anyone like to share?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:15:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: In a Vacuum]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/in_a_vacuum.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was facilitating a process-mapping session recently, and one of the team members came up to me during a break.  She said, "I think it's really interesting that you are leading us in the process mapping in a way that's much different than I've seen before."  I said, "What do you mean?"  She explained that she's seen 3 or 4 Black Belts lead process-mapping sessions at various times, and we all have a very different approach.  She wondered why we didn't all do it the same way.
I answered, "Well in fact, I've never seen another Black Belt do mapping.  I've only ever done it on my own, so I don't know how anyone else does it."
That made me stop and think.  I realized that I've never seen another Black Belt lead a team meeting for a Six Sigma project.  As soon as we all became Black Belts and attended training, we went our individual ways to lead our own projects.  When we get together to talk about our work, it's apparent that we all have different approaches, and we accept that while continuing to run our projects in our own ways.
Now, I'm all for individuality, in that we each bring our own experiences, skills, and strengths to our work.  And in truth, I don't have a lot of free time to sit in on other Black Belts' projects.  But this exchange made me wonder:  Could I learn to be a better Black Belt if I sat in on other project meetings once in a while?  Or is rugged individualism the way of the Black Belt?
I'd love to know your thoughts and experiences with this.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:47:18 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Hearing Voices]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/hearing_voices.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was raised to believe that in Six Sigma, the "Voice of the Customer" is the source of process specifications.  While training, we spent quite a bit of time learning Customer Needs Mapping, developing the Critical to Quality characteristics, and filling out the CTQ tree.  We defined a customer as the end-user, or beneficiary, of the process or service.
Then, it was revealed to us that sometimes the customer is not the only source of process specifications!  We were introduced to the "Voice of Quality" and the "Voice of the Business" as well.
Turns out there is also the "Voice of Federal Regulations" and "Voice of the Partner Organization" and "Voice of the Corporation That Owns You."
Now, it seems as if I'm hearing so many voices in my head, I'm not sure which way to turn sometimes!  (Especially when the customer is always right!)
Does anyone else have a variety of customer inputs?  Do find them to be conflicting or confusing at times?  Please share your experiences!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:52:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Every Which Way]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/every_which_way.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently, I was part of a group Black Belts who were discussing the pressure on leaders to improve, not just in one direction, but in as many ways as possible, seemingly all at once.
Here's a possible scenario, from a hypothetical healthcare organization in the beginning stages of deploying Lean Six Sigma.  A Vice President is speaking to Director:

The organization's customer satisfaction scores are down, so we'll implement a series of projects to bring those scores up.  These aren't "big" enough to be Lean Six Sigma projects, and in any case service improvement is different than operational improvement so we'll use something everyone is comfortable with - PDCA.  We'll need people from your department to work on these teams.
Oh and by the way, we're implementing a new computer system to replace paper charting, and this new electronic medical record will be rolled out over the next year or so.  We'll be using the IT Project Management Structure for this.  We'll need people from your department to work on these teams.
And there's a series of clinical quality projects coming up, thanks to the new "pay for performance" reimbursement plan from our third-party payors (insurance companies), so we'll be kicking off a few projects using CQI.  We'll need people from your department to work on these teams.
While we're at it, the facilities team is working on a plan for renovating a major part of the building, and we certainly want your input, so we'll need a few people from your department at these meetings.  We don't have a structure or methodology, we just want people to come and share ideas and the planning team will make the decisions.
By the way, how come you don't have more active Lean Six Sigma projects in your area of responsibility???
No wonder we Black Belts sometimes hear the cry, "Stop the Madness!"
In an ideal deployment, all strategic planning and project selection would flow from prioritized goals, with agreed-upon targets and metrics.  What I find, in talking with other Black Belts, is that each part of our organizational culture has its own favorite method of selecting projects and choosing project methodology, because that's what has worked best for that area in the past.  Granted, anyone working in process / operational improvement should be conversant with multiple methodologies - but it was a revelation to me that we may have silos of "improvement methodologies" even as we're trying to break down the barriers between functional areas!
If you have experience in moving your organization toward a common methodology and language, please share your experiences!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:49:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Black Belt Image]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/black_belt_image.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently, I had an interesting conversation with the editor of our facility newsletter.  She was looking for short articles for the next edition, and I asked if she thought people would be interested in some tips for email organization.  Simple stuff, like sorting your inbox by sender so you can take care of your boss's communication first.
She thought it was a great idea, and I sent her a few tips.  A few minutes later, she sent me back a question.
"Looks good to me, although do you think it will be odd for a Black Belt to be talking about minor administrative issues like these?  We wouldn't want to undermine your position/image."
Well, I thought that it was very nice of her to care about my image, but, I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry at the question.
It did make me ask myself, what's the image of Black Belt that she was concerned about?  That we only use Lean and Six Sigma for big team-based problem-solving projects?  I think it's also perfectly appropriate to look for efficient ways to handle even minor administrative details!  
As it turned out, she ran the article crediting me (which was perfectly ok as far as I'm concerned).
Have any of you run into image issues of this nature?  It would be interesting if you would share your stories!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:14:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Tellin' It To The CEO]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/tellin_it_to_the_ceo.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, our organization graduated its first class of Lean Green Belts that was taught on our own, without our consultant.  We’re using the term "Lean Green Belt" because we’re teaching them primarily Lean so they can facilitate Rapid Improvement Events, although we’re using the DMAIC structure as an organizing principle.  (Our BBs are called Six Sigma Black Belts, to reflect the additional statistical knowledge they need to run both Lean and Six Sigma projects.)
During the graduation ceremony, we had a wonderful "aha" moment.  Our CEO was just wrapping up his warm congratulatory speech, and he ended it by saying "... and let’s keep pushing our improvement efforts forward!"
As one, the entire Lean Green Belt class responded:  "PULL! NOT PUSH, PULL!"
Needless to say we all erupted in laughter.  This is a class that "gets it" and we’re very excited to see them go out into the workplace and share their learnings.
Our Lean Green Belt certification requirements include 9 days of coursework over 4 months, an exam, and facilitation or co-facilitation of two projects within 12 months of completing the classes.  Having graduated these 40 LGBs, we’re really looking forward to seeing what the "Fall Class of 2006" will be doing next!
(And, we’re already starting our prep work for our Winter 2007 LGB class which will begin next month!)]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:11:56 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: North American International Auto Show]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/north_american_international_auto_show.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Greetings from Detroit, where the North American International Auto Show is in its first full week.  I had the opportunity to visit over the weekend, and was mightily impressed with what I saw.
This time, I have to say I looked with different eyes. The last time I attended, a few years ago, my perspective was that of a potential customer.  I mostly looked for performance, amenities, and appearances.
Now, I'm still as concerned as anyone with important items such as cup-holder placement, lumbar support, and MP3 player connections.  This year, though, my thoughts also concerned quality issues.  Not coming from the automotive world, or even the engineering world, I'm sure I'm not appreciative enough about all the hours of effort that my fellow quality-improvers have put in.  And, I know it's the culmination of everyone's efforts - designers, prototypers, suppliers, factory workers, all the support departments like purchasing and HR, and - yes - Lean Six Sigma practitioners - that drives the product that appears on the showroom floor.
But I'd like to send out  kudos - and thanks - to our fellow quality-improvers in the auto business, wherever they may be.  I had a great time at the Auto Show, and if your initials could appear everywhere you had an impact, I'm sure the cars would be covered, inside and out!
 
For a peek at the Auto Show - go to www.naias.com.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2007 06:44:40 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: I Should Write a Book]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/i_should_write_a_book.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Many organizational leaders are inspired by management books, and quite a few have gone to the extremes of ordering the books for their leadership teams.  Some even start book clubs or go through each book chapter by chapter in their meetings.
I'm an avid reader and have gone through a lot of management books in my time.  Books on principles of leadership, leading without authority, team management, creativity, reward and recognition, communication, accountability, you name it, it's out there.
Which brings me to a bright idea that I've been kicking around for a while.  I should write a book.  I can write inspirational stories that highlight Lean Six Sigma as the way to go... oh wait, that's been done.  OK, I can write a technically awe-inspiring tome chock full of statistical methods and applications... oh wait, that's been done.  Well, then I can write about Lean Six Sigma in a way that's accessible to the general public... oh wait, that's been done.  Still, I think I could write a book.  What might be the recipe for success?
I'd have to start with a great title.  Now, many of the books that have caught the eye of leaders have numbers in them.  For example, the one minute leader.  Level three leadership.  The four obsessions of leaders.  The five obsessions of leaders.  Six thinking hats.  Seven habits.  Eight essential steps.  Nine strategies.  Ten principles.  Twelve pillars.  Twenty-two ways to develop leadership.  101 Management tips.
Another word in the title that catches the eye is the leader-oriented noun, as demonstrated in the titles above.  Strategy, precept, pillar, principle, step, action, theory, law, science, practice, experience, philosophy, trait.
Then, it's essential to have "leader" somewhere in the title; and preferably, a sub-title that explains what the book is really about.
And, the name of an inspirational leader or group is very popular.  Jesus, Sun Tzu, Lao Tzu, Colin Powell, the Marines, the Navy, Captain Kirk, Ghengis Kahn, Wooden, Churchill, Patton.
So, here's my proposal for a great book title.
"The 27 Lean Six Sigma Leadership Secrets of Abraham Lincoln:  Uniting your organization to a common purpose."
That sounds pretty great to me.  Now, all I have to do is... write the book!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:35:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Happy New Year]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/happy_new_year.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't usually make too many New Year's resolutions, but here are a few that I'll be attempting this year.
1.  To be less judgmental of people, and more judgmental about processes.
2.  To look more closely at the "story behind the headlines" when confronted with a problem.
3.  To clarify when I'm giving advice as a Black Belt, and when I'm letting my personal opinion sneak in.
I think if I can work on those three things, I'll become more effective as a process-improver-facilitator.
How about you - did you make any work-related resolutions this year?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:24:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Visit from Sensei Nicholas]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_visit_from_sensei_nicholas.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA['Twas the night before Report-Out, and all through the House of Quality,Not a creature was stirring, (no Six Sigma frivolity!);The Standard Work Combination Forms were hung in the gemba with care,In hopes that some measurements soon would be there;The team members were nestled all snug in their beds,While visions of continuous flow danced in their heads;And the Process Owner in her sari, and I in my TPS cap,Had just settled down with our Value Stream Map,When out on the gemba there arose such a clatter,I sprang from my desk to see what was the matter.Away to the window I flew like a flash,Tore open the vertical blinds and threw up the sash.The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snowGave the lustre of mid-day to the work cell below,When, to my wondering eyes appearing like jewels,Came a miniature Toyota, and eight tiny Lean Tools,And that white-robed figure, so lively and quick,I knew in a moment it must be Sensei Nick.More rapid than point kaizens his Lean Tools they came,And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;“Now, Seiri! now, Seiton! now, Seiso and Seiketsu!On, Shetsuke! on, Kanban! on, Jidoka and Kaikaku!To the top of the work cell! to the top of the wall!Drive waste away! waste away! Waste away all!”As muda and mura and muri all fly,When tackled by process teams, to make quality high;So up to the ceiling the Lean Tools they flew,With the sleigh full of Value, and Sensei Nicholas too.And then, in a twinkling, I heard in the shopThe Lean Tools at work as they made the waste stop.As I drew in my head, and was turning around,Down the chimney Sensei Nicholas came with a bound.He was dressed all in white, from his head to his foot,But his gi wasn’t tarnished with ashes or soot;A Value-packed process he had flung on his back,And he looked like a JIT vendor just opening his pack.His Kanban cards—how they sparkled! His cycle time – how fine!His andons were green, and his Production Control Board did shine!His work sequence was beautifully charted,And it was clear that line balancing soon would be started;The S. M. E. D. plan he held tight in his grip,And it was clear that while he was there, quality wouldn’t slip;He had a set-up reduction down to a fine science,And no problem at all with SOP compliance.He was lean but not mean, a right jolly little creature,And I laughed when I saw his distinctive feature;A black belt with multiple bands on the end,Soon gave me to know I had found a new friend;He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,And fulfilled the customer demand; then turned with a jerk,And laying his finger aside of his nose,And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;He sprang to his Toyota, to his Tools gave a whistle,And away they all flew like the down of a thistle,But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,“Value-added steps to all, and to all a good-night.” (With apologies to Clement Clark Moore, who wrote "A Visit from St. Nicholas" in 1822 as a Christmas gift for his children.)
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:18:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A New Holiday - Happy Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_new_holiday_happy_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On the first day of Sigma, my Black Belt gave to me: Something called a VOC.
On the second day of Sigma, my Black Belt gave to me: 2 CTQs, and something called a VOC.
On the third day of Sigma, my Black Belt gave to me: 3 CAP tools, 2 CTQs, and something called a VOC.
On the fourth day of Sigma, my Black Belt gave to me: 4 process measures, 3 CAP tools, 2 CTQs, and something called a VOC.
On the fifth day of Sigma, my Black Belt gave to me: 5 potential X's!  4 process measures, 3 CAP tools, 2 CTQs, and something called a VOC.
... let's skip ahead...
On the twelfth day of Sigma, my Black Belt gave to me:
12 Lessons learned
11 Visual Signals
10 Poke Yokes
9 SOPS
8 Input factors
7 Equal Variances
6 Sigma Quality
5 potential X's!
4 process measures, 3 CAP tools, 2 CTQs, and something called a VOC.
 
Happy Holidays to all, and to all a good Zst.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:08:59 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Heads or Tails?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/heads_or_tails.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I'm looking at a process, it often seems like there's more than one way to approach a problem - without a clear-cut "right" or "best" solution.  One of the issues that seems to be a frequent "let's-flip-a-coin issue" is centralization vs decentralization, specifically related to decision-making.
In some projects, a particular process has been decentralized - the rationale is remaining close to the customer, using just-in-time deliveries, allowing for the uniqueness of a variety of environments (geographic, cultural, or what have you).  Local sites may come up with different solutions for the same problem.  When we go in to facilitate a project, often we hear the project team and/or leaders call for "standardization across sites," "accountability," and "reduction in over-processing waste" meaning centralization of authority for processes and changes.
In other projects, a particular project has been subject to a central authority - the rationale is to maintain standard work and accountability.  Local sites may not have the flexibility to address unique customer issues.  When we go in to facilitate a project, often we hear the project team and/or leaders call for "delivering on CTQs that vary with our customer base," "reducing hand-offs and unnecessary approvals" and "agility" meaning decentralization of decision-making.
It seems that both sides have good arguments.  I've tried to get teams to consider the "think globally, act locally" concept but have run into opposition from both sides.
Would anyone care to share his or her experiences on either side of this coin?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:39:28 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Acronyms and Anachronisms]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/acronyms_and_anachronisms.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Reading Gianna Clark's latest blog made me thing about all the "sayisms" that I've developed over the past three years of my Lean-Six Sigma journey.  I have added lots of acronyms, sayings, and jargon in my daily speech - and I keep forgetting that not everybody is familiar with these terms (yet) - including my husband during our dinner table conversations!  Have you had this same experience?
Here are some examples of what I find myself saying - in each case, someone has said - "Whoa - slow down - I don't know what you mean by that!"

Radio station WIIFM (thanks Gina, that's what kicked me off on this blog! "What's in it for me?")
CTQs (Critical to Quality [characteristics])
VOC (Voice of the Customer)
ARMI (Approvers, Resources, Members, Interested Parties)
Big Y (Process Outcome)
WWW (What-Who-When)
DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control)
FMEA (Failure Modes Effects Analysis)
DOE (Design of Experiments) 
SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)
DPMO (Defects per Million Opportunities)
SIPOC (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers)
VSM (Value Stream Map)
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality)
GR&amp;R (Gage Reproducibility &amp; Repeatability)
QFD (Quality Function Deployment)
Surely there must be many more out there that you get caught on as well.  Care to share?
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:46:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Reward &amp; Recognition]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/reward_amp_recognition.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our organization is starting to have a very constructive discussion about rewards and recognition for Black Belts.  (Green Belts, hold on, you're next.)  We canvassed our current Black Belts and - as you might guess - the variation was wider than the mean!
Ideas started from certificates, pins, and belts... through public recognition at organization-wide events... through project bonuses... and ended up at preferential promotion after specified criteria were met and the person had been in the Black Belt role for a certain amount of time.
One individual felt that reporting to the hospital President was the most satisfying aspect of the job, while another said, essentially, "forget the trinkets, just give me project bonuses."
Related to this discussion is the appropriate reward/recognition structure for Green Belts, other team participants, Process Owners, and Project Sponsors.  We wonder whether there should be a series of certificates and pins, or should we use the belt structure (white, yellow, orange, etc.), or should we give gift certificates / tote bags / padfolios, and/or public recognition?
While we work to get to organizational consensus on these issues, I wonder whether any of you would like to share your thoughts on successful (or unsuccessful!) recognition programs for Lean Six Sigma project team members.  Do we need to reward differently than we recognize?  Or are these just two different aspects of the same issue?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:22:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The World Series as You've Never Seen It]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_world_series_as_youve_never_seen_it.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dear Fantastic Sports Network,
I'd like to thank you for choosing me to be your first-ever Master Black Belt.  To start things off on a positive note, let me share some suggestions I have for the World Series broadcasts this week.  These are all easy to implement and will make the show even more exciting for the average viewer.
First, let me say that batting averages are overrated.  Really, you need the standard deviation displayed right up there, because the variation is just as important as the average.  Also, when you show the differences between the regular season batting average and the playoff batting average, you need to find room to show the results of the t-test so viewers can tell whether the difference is significant.  For the pitchers, I'd like to see an Analysis of Variation so we can tell whether there is a difference between starters, relief pitchers, and closers.  (And, it will give new meaning to the word "error" for all the baseball fans out there.)
Now, for the proportion of balls vs strikes, let's have the Chi Square results on the screen so we can tell who's performing as expected.  And for some extra excitement, we can use the Poisson Distribution to calculate the probability of a pitcher striking out the next slugger.
There are many opportunities to showcase these exciting new baseball statistics, in ways that are sure to increase the ratings.  The possibilities are infinite (the probabilities, maybe finite).  For now, let me leave you with an idea for a commercial that would showcase the new Fantastic Sports approach to baseball.
Scene:  An "average joe" standing near a water cooler, relating the facts about the previous night's game including our new statistical information.  Every time he relates something about a calculation, or distribution, all the female co-workers swoon.  You know, kind of like the men's body spray commercial but with statistics instead.  What do you think?  It seems to be just the kind of advertising that would attract baseball fans to Fantastic Sports.
I've got plenty of other ideas for you, but let's just start off with these few, and we'll take it from there!
Sincerely,
Your New Fantastic Sports Master Black Belt,
Sue Kozlowski]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:55:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Teaching Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/teaching_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My organization is embarking on a new frontier:  teaching our own version of DMAIC to new Green Belts and Black Belts.  For our first three waves, we used the material provided by our consultant. Now we're ready (we think) to customize it with our own organization's goals and culture.
The original training focused on the DMAIC process and included 17 days over six months - the same training for both Green Belts and Black Belts.  Each Black Belt was assigned a training project with 1 - 3 Green Belts on the team.  In this model, the BB was responsible as team leader and project facilitator, with GBs assisting.
We have made two major changes for this next wave of training.  We now wish to include more elements of Lean throughout the training, and we are preparing Green Belts to be team leaders with a Black Belt mentor/coach helping several Green Belts on their various teams.
In order to do this, we've split the classes so that Green Belts get the essentials of the project structure and emphasis on what they need to know to lead an effective project team.  This training will take 9 days total, with both GBs and BBs in attendance.  We've included tools for scoping the project and preparing the charter; Customer and Process CTQs; Value Stream Mapping; data collection; descriptive statistics and lean metrics such as Process Cycle Efficiency; classic Lean tools such as 5S, Takt time, and pull; planning for Rapid Improvement Events; use of Failure Mode Effects Analysis; facilitating the Control phase; and measurements needed for the sustaining the improvement.
In addition, we have planned some additional days of "Black Belt technical training" to include more of the technical and statistical knowledge that the BBs will need to effectively coach the Green Belts - MSA, sample size calculations, process capability, statistical analysis, design of experiments, etc.
This feels risky to me, because I'm concerned about (a) taking too much out of the Green Belt/Black Belt combined courses, so that the material becomes watered down; and (b) leaving too much in that doesn't pertain to the type of projects the Green Belts will be leading, so the educational material isn't value-added.
If any of you have made this transition, to teaching your own versions of the DMAIC/Lean material, I'd welcome your insights and suggestions.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:33:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Dip]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_dip.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A group of Black Belts and I were recently discussing change management.  One of the group pointed out that we don't do a very good job preparing stakeholders for "The Dip."
"The Dip" is commonly part of the Improve phase.  We've measured and analyzed the heck out of our current process, brainstormed our way into improvement frenzy, and now we're plunging into the pilot for our solutions.  We hold our breath... and by gosh, it works!  On the very first day, defects go down, cycle time improves, people seem to be catching on.  Hooray!
About a week later, things may not look so rosy.  Standard work isn't so standard, cycle times fluctuate, defects go back up a little, and the Process Owner and Project Sponsor start to get a little antsy.  Did we do too much too soon?  Didn't we prepare properly?  Is the pilot a failure?  Is the project a failure?
Those of you who have been through this will know that it's common to have a shaky start.  The weekday shift has been trained with lots of hand-holding; but then the weekend staff shows up and we haven't gotten to them yet.  Or, contingents come to work who are only scheduled every other Monday.  Or, something surfaces that we forgot to plan for.  Sometimes, resistant staff will see one problem and seize the opportunity to tell everyone "it's not working" and there's a crisis of confidence on the part of people who were doing pretty well.
Whatever the cause, with perseverance (and frequent reference to the Contingency Plan and Failure Modes Effect Analysis) the pilot is usually a success after all.
But, can we plan ahead for this dip in the process metrics?  As our group of Black Belts decided, it makes sense to let the Project Sponsor and Process Owner know about this ahead of time - so when it happens, it doesn't look like we're making excuses for a poor pilot.  To say ahead of time, "We'll see a little dip after the first few days; that's normal and common" is a lot different than saying, after the fact, "Oh, that happens all the time, don't worry about it."
How many of you have had experience with "the dip," and how did you handle it?  It would be great for you to share.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:25:08 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Gemba Consciousness]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/gemba_consciousness.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was very interested to read Stephen Crate's recent post with Jim Womack's "Historical Perspective of Lean," which mentioned the idea of gemba consciousness, or awareness of what's actually happening on the shop floor.  "Management by walking around" is related to this concept; at one organization that I know of, meetings were forbidden before 10 am so the supervisors and managers could spend the time in their departments.
However, there's a relationship here to span of control.  At one of the organizations I have worked at, it was not uncommon for Nurse Managers to have over 50 direct reports on all shifts.  One lab manager had over 100 direct reports, at over 30 locations.  In the organization's zeal to flatten the management structure, they had made it difficult - if not impossible - to manage by walking around.
I'm attending some meetings in the coming weeks that will focus on Nursing span of control, so we will try to bring together the concepts of a flat org structure and gemba consciousness.  If any of you would like to share your thoughts on this issue, I would love to learn from you.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:04:27 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Productivity Paradox]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_productivity_paradox.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As our organization implements lean, we are running into fears that our employees won't be as productive after a lean project.  There's a theory that we'll be "paying people to wait around" for patients / customers to show up.
I'm pretty fascinated by this fear, since lean concepts of value are supposed to be be employed for the workers as well as for the customers.  While there may be people to want to be paid for waiting around, I've seen studies that indicate that most healthcare folks want to be valued for the good work they produce in an efficient and pleasant environment.
It's always been clear to me that as process productivity goes up, in a service environment, service productivity goes down - and vice versa.  Think of it this way - if you have someone behind a registration counter, who is already busy, and someone walks up - that someone will have to wait.  And we do this in healthcare all the time - because we're afraid that we won't be getting our money's worth out of an employee, we make sure they have more than enough to do.  An idle employee costs money, in this paradigm; a waiting customer doesn't.
The lean concept of takt time is a great help here - measuring how many "units" or "customers" need to be served in a given time, and staffing accordingly (assuming an efficient process!).  But as expense accountants know, we would rather have workers 100% busy and patients waiting, than workers 85% busy and no patients waiting.
I was struck by a similar concept in the recent book, "Fast Innovation" (George, Works, Watson-Hemphill, 2005).  Creative engineers were found to be less efficient when working at 100% productivity.  It seems that the engineers were most efficient when they were working at 85% productivity - because this allowed them to adapt to sudden demands for design changes during the testing phases, and they didn't have to prioritize among many projects (robbing Peter to pay Paul) in order to adjust to a critical need.
I wonder whether we should pay more attention to this aspect of process design, when moving through our projects?
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:10:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Let Them Eat Cake]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/let_them_eat_cake.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our organization has just come through a phase that I've heard called "The Wave III Bump" by other institutions - the projects are all successful, but they just take so darn long, isn't there any way we can speed things up?  Our organization responded by moving to Lean in a big way; we've done Rapid Improvement Events (kaizen events by any other name) for many months now, and never got to a "Wave IV" for DMAIC projects.
But the pendulum is swinging back - we are finding that "just lean" is not the complete answer for our healthcare system either.  The part where you take only 5 measurements of a process never sat easily for our DMAIC-trained Black Belts who were looking at 24/7 departments where the process changes every shift.  And the lack of a control phase bothered us too, so we added it on after our RIE Report-Out on the last day of the event.  Our control phase lasts at least one month, with weekly report-outs by the Process Owner.
Now we find ourselves working out an amalgam of the DMAIC structure and Lean improvement tools.  OK, there are a lot of books out there called "Lean Six Sigma" but they spend most of their time telling you how wonderful it is without telling you how to structure your project to incorporate both philosophies.  A common presentation is to give all the DMAIC info then add a chapter on Lean tools.  That's not what we're aiming for; it feels like building a torte - a layer of this, then a layer of that.
I've been recently appointed lead BB for our educational process - for Black Belts, Green Belts, and system leaders - assisted in a big way by a subgroup of our Black Belts who are interested in spreading the word.  It's been challenging and fun to actually try to piece these concepts together seamlessly.  We want cheesecake, not a many-layered torte!  So far, what we've come up with is DMALC - Define (Plan), Measure (VSM), Analyze (Waste Walk), Lean (Improve), Control (Follow-up).  We're trying to keep the structure and the speed - eating your cake and having it too, so to speak!
Has anyone else worked on a seamless version of Lean Six Sigma?  I'd love to hear about it.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:34:28 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Too Busy]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/too_busy.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I continue to be amazed at the creativity some people have.  I’ve even heard some staff boast that they were "The Kings and Queens of Workarounds" because they knew how to get things done through back channels, crisis management, and personal connections that were never listed in any procedure manual. They are too busy to follow the established procedure, which "may look good in some book but doesn’t work in real life!"
I believe that one reason for this is that people lose sight of the reason they are providing the care.  In handling patient issues on a daily basis, the issues become "routine" for the healthcare providers, and patients become "workload."  That’s why you may hear staff complaining that a certain patient pushes the call light too frequently, for example.  Most people will seek the "least effort method" - whatever causes them the least effort is their own most efficient process - and they don’t stop to think about the impact of their personal changes on the rest of the process flow.
I was involved in a Rapid Improvement Event recently where we queried the Human Resources folks about the customer of their nurse hiring process.  The voting tallied pretty evenly at 50% for nurse candidates; and 50% for nurse managers.  We had to dig a little deeper to get the "aha" moment of the true customer:  our patients, who need nurses to provide appropriate clinical care; and the faster we fill vacancies, the better staffed our hospital units are, and presumably the better care we can provide to our patients.
Why did this take 15 minutes of discussion?  Because the group was focused on the workload of hiring a nurse, and not the outcome.  The re-focusing exercise helped the group to break some log-jams during the RIE when we looked at a few sacred cows.
Part of our work, as J P Spencer wrote in his August 25 blog, is to be change agents as well as statisticians.  Helping our improvement teams to remember the difference between their calling and their workload is an essential part of that job.
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:23:40 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Anti-Hawthorne Effect]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_anti_hawthorne_effect.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently participated in a great discussion with a group of Black Belts in my SSBB exam review class.  We were talking about the importance of "walking the process" to understand it.  Several BBs had the experience of managers trying to create a process map in a back room somewhere - these managers swore that their map represented reality, until they actually were forced to go out onto the "shop floor" (however that translates to a particular environment) and had their "aha" moment.
One of the things we discussed was the so-called "Hawthorne" effect, which is generally used these days to describe the way workers will do their best, or the expected, while being observed for time studies.  This abnormal performance may skew observational data when only a few workers are being observed over a short period of time.
However, one of the BBs pointed out that they had seen the reverse - workers slowing down or doing things inefficiently while they were being watched.  Why would that happen?
It turns out that it hinged on the workers' perceptions of why they were being watched.  If they felt that their own performance was being rated, they tended to do their best to appear worthy of a possible raise, promotion, or other reward.
If, however, they felt that the management was doing time studies to try to increase productivity, or justify fewer employees, the workers tended to slow down so they wouldn't be responsible for layoffs of themselves or others.  In these cases, the workers assumed that the ultimate goal of the Six Sigma project was being done to reduce the number of employees, so why should they jeopardize their own jobs?
I'd never run into the second scenario before, in my experience in healthcare.  I wondered whether other Belts had seen different scenarios while making time studies or observations for their projects, and how it affected their "Measure" phase.  I also wonder how to be sensitive to either effect when measuring for my next project.
Would any of you like to share related experiences from projects that you have been involved in?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:44:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Triple Threat]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/triple_threat.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my last post, about a recent Rapid Improvement Event (RIE, sometimes called a kaizen event), I mentioned that there were three Black Belts involved.  I’d like to expand on that a little further and see what you may think of our arrangement.
When a Rapid Improvement Event is chartered, a lead Black Belt is assigned to meet with the Process Owner to scope the boundaries of the event and hold pre-event team meetings.  During the RIE week, the lead BB is the primary facilitator of the group.
A second Black Belt is assigned as co-facilitator, who helps with data collection and process-mapping.  During the RIE week, the second Black Belt facilitates any subgroups that break off for special issues; calls out for ancillary department support (such as telecom or maintenance); and acts as a process-checker during the event.
The third Black Belt acts as a resource primarily during the RIE week.  As we are creating standard work, developing forms, revising procedures, etc. there is usually a need to create drafts that can come before the team quickly, so decisions can be made on the second and third days.
Now, this is a lot of "Black Belt resource" to use in a single event week.  Do we really need three BBs to run a lean event?
First of all, we’re fortunate to have enough Black Belts in our health system to be able to help out across sites.  So we have the resources available to do this for the majority of our RIEs.
Second, we’d rather have the team members focus on using their ideas to identify waste and come up with solutions - not typing for hours on a computer.  By having a Black Belt do these tasks, team members are free to be subject matter experts or general knowledge resources.
Third, we’ve found that we need relatively large teams to solve issues in healthcare.  There aren’t typical "work cells" where a select group focuses on one routine task.  No patient-related function is done in isolation, and representation from each stakeholder group is needed so we can have "the right people in the room."  These larger groups benefit from having at least 2 co-facilitators during the event week.
Should everybody use this model?  No.  But for our situation, and in our culture, this seems to work well.  We do vary the number of BBs according to the project scope, size of the team, and situation.  And we hope that as our number of Green Belts grows, we can start utilizing them on RIE teams in place of the second and third Black Belts.  I thought it might be interesting to share our approach, and even more interesting to get your comments on it.  What do you think about having multiple Black Belts on a Rapid Improvement/Kaizen team?  Please let me know.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:20:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Shazam!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/shazam.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Having spent the last week in a healthcare Rapid Improvement Event (i.e. Kaizen), I continue to marvel at the power and resourcefulness of a dedicated team of people.  Our topic was "Patient Access" - in other words, how to get patients into beds more rapidly in a hospital that is typically at (or beyond) stated capacity.  The large team of 20 stakeholders and first-line associates was lead by two of my partners in crime - experienced Black Belts who facilitated the team discussions, kept the group on track, and ensured that we met our deliverable targets.  My role was "helper Black Belt" - leading subgroups, assisting with forms and procedure designs, and generally being the utility outfielder.  [Using three Black Belts for a Kaizen???  I’ll address this in my next post.]
Those of you familiar with Kaizen events know that Monday is the problem definition and waste identification day.  Wow, did we ever come up with problems and wastes!  So many, in fact, that the group was a little discouraged.  "We’ll never be able to do anything about all this!"
Tuesday, being solution day, was even tougher.  The group at first shied away from tackling "the elephant in the room" - physician behaviors and even some nursing or other associate behaviors.  One of our Black Belts quickly got the group back on track - challenging the team to work on the real issues wherever they might fall.  We developed a list of physician issues to discuss with our Vice President of Medical Affairs (VPMA) and he met with us to review the perceptions and barriers relating to physician rounding, writing discharge orders, and other issues.  For the process issues, the team broke up into two groups to work on "scheduled" admissions (OR, Cardiac Cath Lab, Chemo patients) and "unplanned" admissions (ER, Direct Admits).  We also worked on decreasing nursing dissatisfiers - primarily improving communication paths and decreasing delays in bed assignments. The team said, "This is too complicated - too many people affected - this will never work!"
On Wednesday we implemented our solutions - improved communications, an emailed "bed snapshot" report, and streamlined bed request pathways.  Almost immediately we started getting positive feedback - fewer phone calls, an easier process, more of a feeling that the process was controllable (as opposed to the former crisis mode).  The team said, "I can’t believe it, it’s working!"
By Thursday the process data was looking pretty good - a few tweaks were needed here and there.  The team said, "Wow!  What happened?"
The Friday Report-Out was very positive and enthusiastic.  The team said, "We never thought we could do this!  This is great!  When can we do another?"
The leadership who came to the Report-Out said, "We don’t understand how you got from Monday’s day of confusion to Friday’s success!  This Rapid Improvement Stuff is great!"  So, we’ll be inviting them to participate in future events so that each leader can understand how we go from confusion to efficiency - it’s not by saying "Shazam!" and out of the blue a magic lightning bolt of Lean efficiency strikes the hospital - but by the intensive and structured work of the Rapid Improvement Event team.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2006 06:46:14 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma By Any Other Name...]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_by_any_other_name.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's a synopsis of a recent conversation I overheard:
"We do Six Sigma, but we don't call it that."
"Why not?"
"It would scare people off."
"Huh?"
"If we called it Six Sigma, that gets interpreted by people as this strange, large, project "thing" with lots of data and statistics and change and being monitored and a lot of other negative things.  So we don't call it Six Sigma."
"What do you call it?"
"Oh, whatever we want.  Streamlining project or waste reduction project or fix-it project.  It really doesn't matter; once we get the team involved, we follow the DMAIC methodology.  We just don't get hung up on titles or special jargon."
"Does it work?"
"Oh yes, it's very effective.  Just don't call up our company and ask whether we're doing Six Sigma!"
 
 
Question of the day:  Does Six Sigma by any other name smell as sweet?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:46:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Speaking Up]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/speaking_up.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently, I was asked to participate in an evaluation of presentation skills for one of our senior leaders.  The questionnaire included questions that I expected - "speaks concisely" - but also some that I didn't.  After I completed the survey, I started to think about my own presentation strengths and weaknesses.  Here are some of my thoughts.
"Proves key points."  This took me aback.  What does that mean, "prove?"  I shouldn't have to prove anything - when I'm teaching Lean or Six Sigma concepts, the audience should accept whatever I tell them, because obviously, I'm an expert!  And when I'm presenting projects, I'm the Black Belt so you should accept whatever I say.  But -- in thinking about this, I need to remember my own response to so-called experts.  I'm usually open-minded at the beginning of any presentation, but I do wait for key indicators that the speaker has enough knowledge and experience to back up their talk.  For example, I've attended presentations where the speaker was just reading the slides - including the typographical errors.  Now that's poor.  To strengthen my own presentations, I'll try to blend in experiences and stories that make the point (concisely!).
"Uses a pleasant speaking tone."  Do I tend to drone on and on?  Should any lecture-type presentation last longer than 10 - 15 minutes without some kind of a break?  To strengthen my own presentations, I'll try to stop frequently to ask for members of the audience to share experiences; and I'll be alert to signs of "listeners' fatigue" - restlessness, excessive Blackberrying, and side conversations.
"Talks without using spacers such as 'um.' or 'er.' "  Uh-oh.  How many times do I, like, not pay attention to, um, all those little, mmm, habits that are invisible to me, but, like, so annoying to my, umm, audience?  Time for a process check by a fellow Black Belt the next time I teach or present.  If I'm really brave, I'll tape myself.
"Uses appropriate hand gestures."  OK, now I'm in real trouble.  I don't talk without using my arms and hands.  Am I being expressive, or just silly?  Am I distracting from the content?  Guess I'll ask my fellow Black Belt to take notes on this for me, too.
The survey, although intended to benefit an associate, turned out to be my own "aha" moment for the week.  Anyone having tips for more effective presentations, be sure to share with the rest of us!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:34:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Whorf is a Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whorf_is_a_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Likely to be overheard if you have a Klingon Black Belt…
1.  Behold, the Value Stream Map of Kalis!  The greatest Klingon Black Belt who ever lived!
2.  You doubt the worthiness of my statistical analysis?  I should kill you where you stand! 
3.  By questioning my data you have challenged the honor of my family.  Prepare to die!
4.  Our competitors are without Black Belts!  And therefore without honor!
5.  A TRUE Klingon Black Belt does not worry about Stakeholder Analysis – stakeholders do not survive who do not support the project.
6.  I have challenged the entire Finance team to a Bat’Leth contest.  They will not concern us again.
7.  Perhaps it IS a good day to die!  I say we accept the null hypothesis!
8.  You cannot really appreciate “Lean Thinking” until you’ve read it in the original Klingon.
9.  Klingon Black Belts do not need to sleep during the Improve Phase!
10.  Do not ask me questions in Report-Out unless you are prepared to die!
11.  Klingon Black Belts don’t prepare the ROI.  For that, you need a Ferengi from Finance.
12.  “Six Sigma” is for Romulans.  Klingon Black Belts achieve Seven Sigma or die!
Full disclosure:  This is my adaptation of something that's listed on the web in many places, usually in the guise of "Klingon Programmer" or "Klingon Software Developer," without attribution.  As a "Star Trek" fan, and a Six Sigma Black Belt, I thought we needed our own version!  Try imagining Michael Dorn (the actor who played the Klingon "Whorf" in the Star Trek TV and movie series) as the reader!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:23:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Charlton Heston was a Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/charlton_heston_was_a_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What was really written on those stone tablets that Charlton Heston held in "The Ten Commandments?"
The Ten Commandments For Six Sigma Black Belts in Healthcare
I. Thou Shalt Have No other Goal than to Serve the Welfare of the Patient, by Process Improvement using Data Analysis or Lean Tools as Thou Needest.
II. Thou Shalt Not Worship any Particular Form of Statistical Analysis Above All Others, nor Bow Down to any individual Quality Expert’s Trademarked Methodology.
III. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of Thy Computer in Vain, for Thy Computer is a Jealous Computer, Visiting the Iniquity of the Users upon the Third and Fourth Generation of Them that Hate it; but Shewing Mercy unto Them that Love it, and Follow its User Manuals, and Call IT Support when Needed.
IV. Remember the Days of Rest, and Keep them Holy:  Thou Shalt Not Think About Work on these Days, so as to Maintain Thy Sanity, and Promote Clear Thinking when Thou Dost Return to They Labors.
V. Honor Thy Master Black Belts and Senseis, and All Who Impart Knowledge and Understanding, that Their Days may be Long upon the Land and Because Thou Never Knowest When Thou Wilt Need a Letter of Reference.
VI. Thou Shalt Understand the Principles of Each Statistical Method and Test that Thou Doest, so that Thy Hypothesis Testing and Thy Graphical Analysis Shall Be Accurate and Have Acceptable Confidence and Power.
VII. Thou Shalt Keep Informed About New Methods through Continuing Education, Membership in Professional Organizations, and Reading of Thy Professional Journals in Any Spare Time that Thou Hast.
VIII. Thou Shalt Not Falsify the Data, nor Manipulate Data to Achieve Thine Own Ends; neither Shalt Thou Bear False Witness Against Thy Fellow Belts, but Thou Shalt Truthfully Reveal the Situation to Thy Master Black Belt or Sensei in the Midst of Any Problem Investigation that Ariseth.
IX. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Fellow Black Belt’s Knowledge, but Shalt Strive to Achieve Thine Own Understanding of the DMAIC Process and Lean Concepts; and Thou Shalt Ask Questions when Thou Hast Them, and further Thou Shalt Ask for Help whensoever it is Needed to Fulfill These Commandments.
X. Thou Shalt Write, Speak, and Present in Order to Spread the Six Sigma and Lean Message, because Communication Eight Times Eight Ways is Thy Future and Thy Job Security.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:37:20 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Help for Physicians]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/help_for_physicians.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After writing my recent blog, "Physician Heal Thyself," I attended a review session for the ASQ certification exam.  The subject of physicians came up when we were discussing identification of customers in healthcare.  One of the attendees reminded the group that  physicians tend to be diagnosticians, looking for a way to fit the patient’s symptoms into a disease classification so a treatment course can be determined.
This made me think:  Would physicians relate to Six Sigma concepts better if we called it AEDTO instead of DMAIC?
Assess = Define the problem, or gather patient / process symptoms
Evaluate = Measure the extent / impact of the problem
Diagnose = Analyze the results of the tests / eval, see which are significant or not
Treat = Improve the patient / process
On-going follow-up = Control to see whether the patient / process stays in the improved condition
Hmmm... something I will run by my physician Yellow Belt and Green Belt colleagues!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:28:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Physician, Heal Thyself!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/physician_heal_thyself.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What makes some physicians so difficult to convince of the need for change?
I'm talking about physicians who are extremely unhappy with the current state.  They complain to anyone who will listen.  They threaten to take their patient volume elsewhere.  They tell horror stories about orders they wrote that weren't filled, wrong items in the orthopedic implant tray, results that took days to be communicated.
And here we come, Healthcare Black Belts to save they day!  (We think.)
For these unhappy physicians, nothing gives them confidence that an improvement project will work.
1.  It will take too much time.  Three months?  Way too long.
2.  Data-based?  If it's not clinical data, it doesn't count.
3.  Measurement system analysis?  That doesn't square with what they observe.
4.  Voice of the customer?  THEY'RE the customers!  So give them what they want!
You are probably familiar with the saying, "When you've asked one physician for an opinion... you've asked one physician."  Meaning that, in order to understand what physicians want, you have to ask every physician for their opinion since no one will admit to being able to speak for anyone else (including department chairs).  And by the time you've gotten around to all the physicians, the first ones have probably changed their minds.
I haven't come across a miracle cure.  I've used one-on-one conversations, 10 minutes on the department meeting agenda, briefs at the Medical Executive meeting, special "operations" meetings with internists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, etc.  A key stakeholder physician who has a positive outlook and is in a position to influence others is great... if you can find one; some of my fellow Black Belts have been very fortunate that way.
With physicians having such an impact on our ability to provide consistent outcomes in our healthcare processes, it's a challenge dealing with individuals who believe that only their individual way is the right way.
Does anyone else have some enlightening words of wisdom to share, on the subject of physicians and improvement projects?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:53:12 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: From Six Sigma to Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/from_six_sigma_to_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our health system began its Six Sigma journey about three years ago.  We started up in Wave I with three Black Belts at the two largest hospitals (myself among them) who had no  real idea of what would come.  After a successful round of projects in Phase I, we expanded to hire an additional 12 Black Belts to cover the rest of the hospitals, and moved two individuals up to Master Black Belt positions.  We had a great Wave II - ok, there were the usual growing pains, but overall we were feeling pretty good about ourselves.  Onward to Wave III!
Then we started learning more about lean.  Our executives loved the idea that we could move faster; the concepts and tools were simple to understand and easy to learn.  We shifted gears to start doing some lean projects (kiazens or Rapid Improvement Events as you prefer).  We had very good success; team members were enthusiastic and executives raved.  
Some of our Black Belts, myself included, were happy to learn the lean tools but were not as comfortable with the lean projects as with the DMAIC methodology.  I was puzzled because I liked everything about lean, except for the kaizen project structure, and I couldn’t figure out why this might be so.  After a lot of reflection, I came up with a theory.  It’s based on the Meyers-Briggs personality types - an assessment based on individual preferences in four areas:  introvert-extrovert, intuitive-sensing, thinking-feeling, judging-perceiving.
The DMAIC methodology is perfect for intuitive-thinking types.  These individuals are called "the Rationals" according to Keirsey, and are highly skilled in strategic analysis.  You want to go in there, look at a problem, analyze it, and then pick the right solution.  You invest a lot of time and effort into making things right, and the payoff is doing it right the first time.  Achieving the goal is the thing.
The lean methodology, on the other hand, is perfect for sensing-feeling types.  Keirsey calls these "the Artisans" whose strengths are in tactical variation - that is, trying things out and honing activities until perfection is approached.  You want to go in there, look at a problem, and start trying to make things better.  If at first you don’t succeed, try try again!  You invest a lot of energy into making things get better one step at a time, and the payoff is seeing how far you have come.  Making the journey is the thing.
I’m pretty firmly in the intuitive-thinking camp, so that was my "aha" moment of why I didn’t have the same enthusiasm for Lean as I did for DMAIC.  Having explained this, at least for myself, I started to wonder whether I would have been more comfortable incorporating lean tools if I had approached it from this perspective from the start.  Of course, most of us are perfectly capable of using whatever tools are required to achieve process improvements.  But I wonder whether knowing our personality preferences is just as useful as knowing the tools of Six Sigma and Lean.
What do you think?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:54:30 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Good News]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/good_news.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
I do my fair share of venting. OK, sometimes I even go on a rant. I have lots of great horror stories. Unbelievable team members, the Project from You-Know-Where, and the day my computer crashed and I lost 6 hours of data entry. I love swapping these stories, and playing "Can you top this?" To listen to me tell it, my career as a healthcare Black Belt has been rife with disaster the entire time I’ve been in this position.
But every now and again some very good things happen - the memories sneak up on me, when I’m not expecting it. 


· The two team members who started out fighting like cats and dogs - each came to me and said they wanted to leave the team if the other person was going to stay - and who ended up respecting each other and telling me, "I never realized how hard the other person’s job really was, and how well she does it."
· The Green Belt who quickly became a partner in our quest for improvement.
· The nurse who said, "You’ll never get the doctors to change their behavior" and confessed at the end of the project that she had changed her opinion about just what was and wasn’t possible.
· The team member I really didn’t like, but who ended up teaching me more about myself than I wanted to know - and I became a better Black Belt for it. (Hard as that is to confess.)
When we get together with our fellow Belts, maybe it’s a good idea to bring out the positive stories as well as the negative ones. Got any great - good - stories to share with us?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2006 11:28:34 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Process Owner Dilemma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/process_owner_dilemma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
My favorite quote, from a Manager identified as a Six Sigma project Process Owner: "Well if I’d known that being a Process Owner involved this much work, I would have never volunteered to be one!"
In healthcare, we haven’t traditionally discussed the leadership role of process management. In fact, "running healthcare like a business" isn't usually a complimentary phrase. We run around writing Standard Operating Procedures whenever we suspect it’s our turn for the JACHO or HCFAP visit, and occasionally we run across someone who feels a personal mission to improve their departmental operations.  But, if you ask some healthcare leaders what processes they own, you have just switched to a foreign language. The two concepts - process, and ownership - are not usually part of the culture. Sometimes, the concept is also skipped in DMAIC training.  I was mid-way through my first project when my MBB asked for the name of my process owner, because he/she would be expected to participate in the R3 (Improve) report-out. Until that time I had no clue as to what a Process Owner was, let alone how to find one.
Our poor healthcare managers are so BUSY.  They are constantly swamped with multiple call-ins, intermittent leaves of absence, and high staff turnover.  Nursing and ancillary staff recruitment challenges are tremendous.  Every day brings new and conflicting high-priority assignments.  "Emergency" meetings are called more and more frequently.  No wonder some leaders feel that being assigned as a Process Owner is more of a punishment than a recognition of their responsibility and accountability inherent in their job titles.  And, as a former Manager and Director myself, I can relate to their feelings of being overwhelmed.  But I still need an active, effective Process Owner for my project to be successful!
In our project discussions, we use the explanation that the Six Sigma / Lean project is the means by which their departmental operations will improve, and therefore the project is related directly to the Process Owner's main responsibilities, so it's not an add-on burden.  Somehow, through all the high-priority emails, full meeting calendars, and emergency budget conferences, it just doesn't feel so clear-cut for the leaders I have worked with.  They're too busy managing the crisis(es) to manage the process(es).
This has been the greatest challenge for me as a Black Belt - how to get the understanding of "ownership" across to a leader who hasn't been exposed to that concept in the 30+ years they've been upwardly progressing.  Yes, each of our projects now has a Process Owner identified as part of scoping the project, in pre-Define preparation. Yes, we now have the Process Owner routinely helping to present the Improve and Control report-outs. Yes, we're developing a Process Owners course through our Learning Institute (tentatively entitled "Healthcare Process Management").  But we haven’t been consistently successful at getting the buy-in from all of our Process Owners to make the Control phase sustained over the long term.  They're all too busy doing their "real" jobs to worry about a project that's "finished."
What wonderful piece of knowledge about Process Owner development am I missing?  Do any of you have training classes or parts of your project structure devoted to helping leaders buy into the concept of process ownership?  Please share your thoughts!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2006 09:49:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: It's Not Easy Being Green... Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/its_not_easy_being_green_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
I’m sure this never happened to any other Healthcare Black Belts: You’ve been selected as a Black Belt for a team, and you’re assigned one or two Green Belts for the project. Early in the project you notice that one of the Green Belts is pretty weak in a number of areas… basic things like showing up on time, having poor interpersonal skills, and being more interested in using the computer to revise their resume than to enter data.
So, you say to yourself, "Hey! This Green Belt isn’t a very good supervisor - manager - whatever - how did he/she ever get picked for this highly prestigious and supposedly upwardly mobile assignment???" (And, let's be brutally honest, some of our Green Belts are asking the same question about us!).
Do you go to the top leaders and complain about their Green Belt Selection? Do you confront the Green Belt, and if so, how? Do you make it your mission to "fix" the Green Belt, because by gum, you’re a change agent after all? Do you kick the Green Belt off your team? Do you grin and bear it, because hey, it’s only one project and with luck you’ll never see this particular Green Belt again?
I’ve had strong Green Belts who were a major factor in success, and I’ve had Green Belts I would have been better off without. Looking back, I’m not sure I supported the weak ones as well as I should have. What advice would you give to a new Black Belt? Or an experienced one?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 11:36:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma and Healthcare...  An oxymoron?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_and_healthcare_an_oxymoron.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How many healthcare processes have you measured that are 2.0 Zst or higher at the start of the project?  I've never had one of these - most of mine have started at below 1.0 or in the negative Sigma range.
In every one of my projects, I've had to use lean tools to get where I needed to go.  Usually, I can't find a standard procedure (or there's a paper procedure that no one follows).  Or, there are such variances between shifts that there are 2 or 3 standard processes.  
In my very first project, Inpatient Discharge, we found that none of the x's were significant.  In my second project, Emergency Department Door-to-Doc, we found that all of the x's were significant.  In addition to these clues, in both projects, everyone we interviewed had a different version of what the standard process was.
In my most recent project, Admission through the ED, there were 12 "supplier groups" in our SIPOC process map (ED Nurses, ED Techs, ED Physicians, Admitting Physicians, Case Managers, Bed Control Managers, ED Unit Clerks, Nursing Unit Clerks, Nursing Unit Nurses, Housekeepers, Maintenance, and Registration Clerks.)  Each had a different time for shift change, with 8, 10, and 12 hour shifts among the various groups.  The process changed each time a group's shift changed.  You won't be surprised to find out that we started at a negative Sigma level.  We moved to lean tools almost immediately.  And yes, we did reach a positive Sigma outcome, although we also followed up by chartering two Standard Work Projects, one for housekeeping and one for getting the patient ready for departure to their inpatient room.  
This makes me think that perhaps we should not start a DMAIC project with a very low Zst score - we should do a standard work project first.  Is Lean - then Six Sigma - a logical approach?  Or should we start with Six Sigma / DMAIC and then incorporate lean in the Improve phase?  SHould I'd love to know more about your own experiences.  Thanks in advance for sharing.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2006 13:51:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: &quot;It's So Simple!&quot;]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/its_so_simple.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
I’ve been in the healthcare field all of my professional life.  Whether this is your situation, or you have joined us lately, perhaps you’ve noticed the same thing I have.  We all know what to do to make things better in our hospitals and facilities. It’s true… just ask anyone.  Solve ER overcrowding? Reduce room turnover between OR cases? Fix lab turn-around time? Reduce errors in medication dispensing?  Everyone you ask will have the answer. (Usually, of course, it’s someone else’s fault and someone else’s problem to fix.)
And, it’s always "so simple."  Even Henry Ford said, "You just put the work in front of the men, and they do it." People should know what to do!  Customer service: smile and greet patients like they are welcome in our facilities.  How hard is that? We shouldn’t need to hire million-dollar consultants for that, should we?  High-quality health care: follow standard operating procedure. It’s right there in the manual, referenced from a dozen national quality organizations!  On-time OR case starts: just make sure everyone, including the surgeon, knows to come in 15 minutes early.  Easy!
And yet, and yet…  When you ask the magic question, "How do you make things better?" what responses to you get? "Well, that is a tough question." "You’re right, that’s the hard part." "Well, it’s difficult, alright." "That’s the $24-million dollar question, isn’t it?"  "We've hired consultants to help us with that."
When I read books and articles on management, healthcare, and Six Sigma, there are lots of people with lots of advice about "what to do."  1. Get leadership commitment.  2. Hire the right Black Belts.  3. Develop a strong infrastructure.  4. Design a good recognition and rewards program.  Not too many people come up with the "how to do it."  Granted, each of us is in a unique environment and culture.  But, even when we use lean and Six Sigma tools, there can be tremendous difficulty in getting people to agree to "do the right things right at the right time."  And we're all looking for the simple - miracle - answer, aren't we?
When we come across someone who has a "simple" answer, rather than just nodding our heads, we should ask – "Just how do you do that?"  (Followed by, of course, "What data do you have to back that up?")   And we should not accept "It’s so simple!" for an answer, especially if we’re paying someone to answer the question.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:28:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Upward Management in Healthcare Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/upward_management_in_healthcare_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How many healthcare Black Belts think the biggest Six Sigma challenge is not project management, or coaching your team, but teaching your Project Sponsor / Executive Sponsor / Process Owner about Six Sigma?  This is something I've encountered in early Six Sigma Project Waves.
The scenario I'm thinking about is the one where you're meeting with leadership about your project.  In public meetings, they've been supportive; however, to you they say things like:
"I don't think that Green Belt will be able to attend too many of your meetings, I've got her on two special projects already."
"We're having a JCAHO inspection in March so team members won't be available to you that month."
"There's no money in the budget for Six Sigma expenses like a team lunch."
"You'll have to go through the normal purchasing procedures if you want to buy a new fax for that department; it usually takes six months if you can talk the Director into approving the purchase in the first place - but good luck."
You may go to your Executive Sponsor, Master Black Belt, or other Six Sigma leader, only to be told "That's part of your job as a Black Belt to work with everyone to get them on board."   But some Directors or Vice Presidents may not acknowledge your authority to tell them to spend money, take people out of clinical care areas, or re-arrange their plans for the upcoming inspection.  Certainly this is even more difficult when Six Sigma is first being introduced to a hospital or healthcare system.
In one project that I know of, the Black Belt had to put up with a lot of negative push-back from the Executive Sponsor and Process Owner (with the Project Sponsor pretty much absentee the whole time).  He persevered, though, with assistance from his MBB.  By the end of his successful project (which had a large financial benefit), he had gained enough political capital to make the leadership team much more action-oriented during the next project.  
What has worked for you, when you've come across difficulties with your leadership team?  Was there something specific that helped to get them to the "aha" moment of what Six Sigma is all about?  Please share your experiences.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:22:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Who Am I, and Why Am I Here?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/who_am_i_and_why_am_i_here.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Healthcare Black Belt seeks long-distance relationship with diverse group of process improvers willing to share opinions and experiences about the challenges of getting the right people to do the right things right."
First order of business:  Who am I?  I ask myself this question frequently.  Every time I change jobs, it's an opportunity to reinvent myself.  Currently, I'm a Six Sigma Black Belt with three years of experience with Six Sigma and Lean in healthcare.  I've enjoyed the structure and rigor of Six Sigma, while being challenged by individuals who don't think in terms of process.  I've been humbled - and reinvigorated - by my transformation from being an expert in my previous area, the clinical laboratory, to becoming a "newbie" at process improvement.  I'm an optimist by nature, teacher by outlook, psychologist by necessity, and an INTP to boot.
Second order of business:  Why am I here?  I'll use this space to share my opinions about the "A" side of the equation - where Q (the quality of the solution) x A (the acceptance of the stakeholders) = E (the effectiveness of the solution).  I'm fascinated by the "people side" of this work - how to get buy-in; why some of us would rather develop work-arounds than follow a standard process; the all-pervasive "That will never work!" and my favorite, "You'll NEVER get the doctors to go along with that!"  From a team perspective, what's the best way to turn nay-sayers and eye-rollers into converts?  What's the change that has to take place in order to build a true Six Sigma organization?
I really look forward to our conversations together.  Let me leave you with a question, to start:  If you're involved in a Six Sigma effort, what's the ONE THING you wish you'd been told when you started?  Here's what I was actually told - it only took my 2 years to really believe it:  "Six Sigma is not only about the data.  Six Sigma success is based on relationship-building bound to a common philosphy."  What should someone have told you, at the beginning of your journey?
Let the blogging begin!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:36:07 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: About Blogger: Sue Kozlowski]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/about_blogger_sue_kozlowski.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Susan F. Kozlowski, MSA, MT(ASCP)SBB DLM, CSSBB(ASQ)Manager, Performance Improvement, Henry Ford Hospital and Health Network, Detroit, MI
Sue is a performance improvement expert currently working on improving patient throughput for the flagship hospital of a regional health system.
Coming from the clinical laboratory, Sue became a Wave I Black Belt in 2003.  She has completed numerous projects involving ER, OR, inpatient length-of stay, and physician offices.  She is also President of Lean Learning Solutions, LLC, which provides consultative expertise in Lean Six Sigma education and training.  Sue maintains connections with her roots as an Adjunct Associate Professor at Wayne State University, lecturing on laboratory management topics.  An active member of the American Society for Quality, she serves on the Program Committee for ASQ-Detroit and is the leader for the ASQ Subcommittee which is developing the Body of Knowledge for Team and Workplace Excellence.  In her spare time, she enjoys speaking at local and national conferences, especially those with all expenses paid.
The alphabet soup above?  Master of Science in Administration; Medical Technologist (American Society for Clinical Pathology), Specialist in Blood Banking, Diplomate in Laboratory Management; and then Certified Six Sigma Black Belt from the American Society for Quality.  (The theory being that you can’t really have too many letters after your name.)]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Blogger Bios]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:35:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

	</channel>
</rss>
