<?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 14:53:46 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    	<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Thank You, Six Sigma Community]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/thank_you_six_sigma_community.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dear iSixSigma Blogosphere Readers,
Back in January 2005, I started up a little blog about Six Sigma companies.  It caught the eye of iSixSigma’s very own Mike Cyger and he invited me to join his growing team of forward thinking Six Sigma zealots dedicated to providing the best information about Six Sigma to the masses. 
As an active user of iSixSigma since 2001, working for the company was like being a roadie for my favorite band. Living and breathing Six Sigma.  
I’ve been associated with the Six Sigma industry for nearly a decade and have met some of the world’s finest people in this community. To you, I give my deepest thanks for all you have taught me. My journey to this point has been fantastic. 
But alas, it is time for me to move on. I have the chance to follow a dream of mine, and I cannot let the opportunity pass me. 
I will remain active with iSixSigma over the next several weeks transitioning my role. I will continue to keep up with the industry and look forward to keeping in touch with you in the future. I can be reached via LinkedIn.  
Best,
Michael Marx]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:51:44 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Ultimate Organization?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_ultimate_organization.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[

I’m going to go out on a limb and open up a discussion on the "Ultimate Organization" here.  In my last two posts, I talked a little bit about integrating the 6S culture in an organization (vs keeping it at a specialist level only) and organizational fear.  I figured a logical progression of the overall discussion would be to open up a thread to talk about what the ultimate organization would look like.  

Take a minute to reflect on your experiences (good and bad) on your involvement in 6S.  Then, if you can find the best scenario for success, fast forward a few years to the end game.  What does it look like (from president to the front line)?

There are a few motivations behind why I’m asking the question. The main one is that a lot of times we talk about what doesn’t work, or challenges that we face, but in the grand scheme, I have yet to see a discussion around what "utopia" looks like from a 6S standpoint.  Based on the varying experiences and industry affiliations of the readership here, I am really looking forward to the diverse possibilities of answers, as well as some great dialog.

Happy daydreaming!

-K

]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:05:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Culture Change and Fear]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/culture_change_and_fear.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[

There’s no doubt that fear can prevent an organization to be what it could be, but what can be done about it...how many times have you been in a situation where there were problems to solve, but no one stepped up to the plate to solve them because of fear? Piggy-backing on my previous posting, this could be another inhibitor to making 6S truly mainstream.  Take for example the following:
A defect is identified, and there is no clear root cause.  Short term fixes are employed.  A person is nominated to handle the problem solving, and as analysis is performed, the exercise becomes one of self-protection.  Groups that are involved begin to work on proving that they are NOT the root cause.  The activity becomes so muddy that no clear root cause is ever found.  Whatever band-aid that was put in place becomes the solution, and the cycle starts again...
What is the bottom line here?  To me - fear.  Fear of being the guy or gal that stands up to say their department owns the root cause...just like fear shuts down dialog, fear can also shut down team problem solving.

So the question is, how do we foster change so that we overcome fear?  How do we create a safe environment for problem solving effectively with free expression?   

]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:27:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Business Scenarios]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/business_scenarios.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How do you describe a process to a team? There are lots of tools in the toolkit including value stream mapping, functional swim lanes, context diagrams and SIPOC to name a few. But I find they can be “a little cold” for a non-technical or cross-functional team and I want to “bring it to life”.
Take a simple example from the area I work in, general insurance. To describe the customer claims process in any depth takes time. So when you have a cross-functional team covering front, middle and back office it can mean (even with the tightest time keeping and agenda) that the people at the end of the process don’t get a look in as most of the day has been spent at the beginning/middle of the process, where all the customer interaction happens. So you end-up leaving people out. 
As the title suggests my recommendation is Business Scenarios. Rather than cover the generic customer claims process, cover it in a series of business scenarios like

The policy holder’s vehicle collided with a lamppost, no one else was involved, it happened at 11:45pm
The policy holder’s vehicle was hit by a 3rd party vehicle from behind, both vehicles were drivable, no one appears injured at the scene, 3rd party was insured and traceable
The policy holder’s vehicle collided was a 3rd party vehicle on a narrow street, liability is unclear, 3rd party injured and vehicle undriveable
If you start with the simplest scenario where nothing goes wrong (sunny-day) then you can rapidly walk the whole process.  You can add complexity as you need to. Maybe include failures in the process and known exceptions (rainy-day) e.g. 3rd party had no insurance. 
This approach really opens up the discussion as you are talking to people in the language they relate to. You get to see the true degree of variation required of the process which allows for more robust solutions.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:41:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Is There A Place For Six Sigma As We Know It In The Future]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/is_there_a_place_for_six_sigma_as_we_know_it_in_the_future.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been thinking about various topics regarding Six Sigma recently, and I keep coming back to a question that is hard to answer...if we "do Six Sigma" right, is there even a place for Six Sigma as we know it ten or twenty years down the road?Consider this.....ten years from now, do you really want to have Black Belts doing project work? Or...do you want Six Sigma tools to be the status quo of how the business is operated by everyone? To me the latter is the end game, but does the "classical" approach to Six Sigma (Black Belts doing projects) fit the end game??...I’m not so sure.How do we structure Six Sigma in general to better fit the end game of real culture change, instead of creating a bunch of "super problem solvers"?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:27:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Why is Quality Planning So Much of an Afterthought?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/why_is_quality_planning_so_much_of_an_afterthought.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[


It’s really interesting for me to look back and think about how many times quality planning has come up as an afterthought.  It is staggering for me to think about what could have happened if quality planning was done the proper way.


Here’s an example....one time I was involved with a new product introduction, and one of the major milestones in the quality planning protocol was for gage repeatability to be assessed and acceptable by a certain date.  Sounds fine and dandy right?  Well, the exercise turned into a frustrating one, as discussions turned into something like "did the gage r&amp;r’s get done today?", without even considering why they were being done in the first place.  Moreover, people who didn’t know the first thing about what a grr was were asking the questions.....


I’ve seen this phenomenon across several industries, and it makes me wonder if up-front quality planning generally is really taken seriously at all.....

]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:06:26 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: State of Maine – CI-P's Visit Lonza.]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/state_of_maine__ci_ps_visit_lonza.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On Monday June 1, 2009 Continuous Improvement Practitioners (CI-P), from the State of Maine "Bend the Curve” initiative, led by Walter Lowell, conducted a study mission at Lonza in Rockland Maine. To quote from the Lonza web site, “Lonza is one of the world’s leading suppliers to the pharmaceutical, healthcare and life science industries. Its products and services span its customers’ needs from research to final product manufacture.”
Lonza recently began some Six Sigma initiatives including Value Stream mapping and specific Kaizen and Kanban analysis that have reduced waste, lowered required inventory, automated some processes, increased productivity and saved money in most every area reviewed. Jon Kirsh, formerly with MEP Maine has new VSM planned for a number of other areas and is hoping for the same results. 
The most impressive changes according to Jon included a 5S review of the research and develop workshop and the incorporation of KANBAN signs in various production areas to alert staff of lowed inventory or need for other resource ordering. Six Sigma tools have made a significant difference in the work that LONZA does. I enjoyed seeing the practical and economical process changes these tools have effected at LONZA.
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:23:44 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Parachute in the Fire Fighter]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/parachute_in_the_fire_fighter.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Organisation in chaos? Emergencies erupting? Been blind-sided by the unexpected? Project a few years late and still does not work? Need to get things under control? Make way for the Corporate Fire Fighter. (Phew!)
This trusted pair of hands hits the ground running….makes rapid assessment of situation….. takes urgent action …... reports an outstanding success …….moves onto the next big fire. 
You could be thinking, “Hey that’s me!”. Agreed fire-fighting can be fun, exhilarating and very rewarding for those involved. Your organisation may place a high degree of recognition and reward on people with these skills.
But is this a measure of a healthy and successful organisation? 
Would an alternative model be of a highly organised machine where everything fits strategically together; risks are identified and addressed early; projects invariably deliver on time, cost &amp; quality; business metrics provide robust leading indicators. Achieving that level of capability is difficult, very difficult.
An organisation may not have this level maturity for any number of reasons. They may be a business start-up and just about managing to keep a lid on issues as the business grows. They may be working in a highly innovative sector where new products and competitors frequently appear to “eat your lunch”.
But what about the fire starters? The leaders who raise the alarm? Is this the right thing to do?
I am no expert on management leadership &amp; behaviour theory. It might be just the right thing to do to keep people on their toes? Creating a crisis can be a good way to drive things forward. Or is it a reactive and costly approach?
Ultimately I think it comes down to looking at the root-cause and fixing what/who caused the crisis in the first place rather than heroic fire-fighting.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:27:45 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What is truth?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_is_truth.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Over the last 5 years I have invested considerable time &amp; energy in trying to become a skilled continuous improvement practitioner. I am a strong believer in continual learning via direct deployment experience.
Over this same period, continuous improvement has become a main-stream product. Any business without an Operational Excellence, Process Improvement, Process Excellence, Continual Improvement (and so on) capability is now way behind the curve. This dramatic growth has brought a large increase in the number of CI professionals.
Here is the point; these days I have conversations with other CI professionals that make me wonder I have learnt the right things, things like:

The scientific way of experimenting is to change one factor at a time 
The most important factor in sampling is population size 
Reducing overall process time has nothing to do with becoming Lean
Where did I go wrong? Case in point is the ex-GE Master Black Belt. Now I don’t like to generalise and easily the best MBB I have ever met was from GE, but my other experiences have not been so good. Ever had to explain proportion tests and what a chi-square test does to a ex-GE MBB?
How to conclude? Maybe we could agree a single version of the truth and certify against this? Maybe it’s just part of the evolution of CI? I just don’t know. But I feel the CI world changing.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 10:03:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Practical Use of Control Plans]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/practical_use_of_control_plans.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
Now more than ever, the development and use of control plans play a critical role in succesfully implementing a new process. In my past, I have seen varying ways that control plans have been implemented, but I still struggle a little when I try to find a really good example of control plan development.

To me, control plans need to be developed upfront in the development process. This is really important so that key product attributes (ctq’s) are constantly aligned with process control parameters. Some may think that developing control plans this early is a waste of time (since processes typically don’t get defined so early), but why not let the process itself be defined by the control plan?

So how do your organizations use control plans... I’d love to know...
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 May 2009 11:04:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Swansong]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/swansong.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Time are topsy-turvy, and change is in the air. My role has evolved away from Six Sigma over the past several months, and my readers – both of you – may have noticed I’ve been posting here less and less. This will be my last post. Thanks for all the comments and emails. It’s been fun and I’ve very much appreciated the pulpit and bullhorn that iSixSigma has provided.
I’ll enjoy being a reader for the rest of the excellent bloggers on this site in the future. Keep up the good work.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: How Many Sigmas Does It Take to Solve a Problem Around Here?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/how_many_sigmas_does_it_take_to_solve_a_problem_around_here.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Tonight I was thinking about some of my experiences since being involved with Six Sigma.  One experience came to mind that when looking back, was so funny in the context of the situation, that I can’t resist sharing it.
I was working on a project that was to improve quality of parts arriving to a particular customer.  This customer was very critical of our shipping quality, and rightfully so - we had some challenges with the product that we were making for that particular customer.  The project had all the essentials of a great project - a clear problem definition, a good scope, variable data to analyze, with process controls that were adjustable (perfect for DOE’s, etc).
I was called into a meeting where we were discussing this product at the customer’s campus, and I (as the project leader of the problem) had to speak on project status.  My audience consisted of various managers, and a senior manager who was running the meeting.  There were probably ten or so people at the meeting, and I was the lowest organizational level person there.  So after a few minutes of initial discussion, I started to give status.  I started explaining how we framed the problem, and how our team established good measurement repeatability through the "Measure" phase.  I stated that our team was in the "Analyze" phase, and I explained our analysis plan.  As I was explaining, I noticed that the senior manager was squirming around in his chair, he seemed to become more and more uncomfortable as I kept explaining.
Finally, he couldn’t resist anymore, and cutting me off he said:
"I don’t care if it takes one sigma, two sigmas, five sigmas or twelve sigmas!  I just want the problem fixed...how many sigmas is it going to take!?"
I was completely taken back by this statement, and all of the managers’ eyes turned to me for my answer.. I was at a loss for words until I managed to muster up a response.  I said:
"A lot"
What else could I say??]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:49:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma really sucks!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_really_sucks.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Picking-up on Sue’s recent Home blog, I’d like to talk about my recent experience at home.
Over this weekend my wife and I had  “words” about the work I do helping on the home chores. There were a number of areas such as cooking, washing dishes, ironing, cleaning toilets, shopping, washing clothes, making beds, tidying-up, planning meals, and so on. I had no idea of the number of NVA factories at work and being a strong believer in Six Sigma I committed to resolve this problem. 
I dedicated my Saturday evening and produced what I believe to be a very polished piece of work. I reviewed the key processes and created a core set of current-state value stream maps. For each of these I developed some slick data collections sheets to baseline current performance. I even identified some time saving quick wins. I shared my work and must say I was most surprised by the reaction and being told exactly where to stick my data collection sheets.
But I am a committed practitioner and realised I may have misunderstood the problem statement and goals. It seemed helping to do the chores was more important than improving current performance? So Sunday night I cooked the evening meal and over dinner suggested we discuss our differences. Luckily to support this I had previously produced a fishbone diagram and recommended a rapid brainstorming exercise followed by constraint busting 5-whys to get quick results……. 
Back at work on Monday morning, I am having a tough job trying to explain my black eye. I’m sleeping in the spare bedroom and the kids think I am an idiot. 
Six Sigma really sucks!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:46:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The 1.5 Shift - Time For A Paradigm Shift?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_15_shift_time_for_a_paradigm_shift.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Years ago (almost ten now!) when I was going through Black Belt training, I remember seeing the famous slide describing what a three-sigma world would look like.  The presentation slide described how three-sigma aircraft landing performance would mean two long or short landings per day, and that 20,000 articles of mail would be lost per day at a three-sigma level.  After completing the presentation, an astute participant in the class asked why 3.4 DPMO was described as six-sigma performance...to him, it seemed like a high level of defects for a true six-sigma process.  
All statistical purists know this is the case, but the instructor started describing how the 1.5 shift and drift effect degrades performance over time, and that this number was used based on historical performance, etc....
Since I've been in a position to coach various individuals in six sigma concepts for some time now, I have to admit that each time I describe the 1.5 shift it gets more and more frustrating.  Here's why:

The 1.5 shift doesn't really hold over time in all cases, so it can be a poor approximation.  I've seen long-term performance influenced by much less than a 1.5 shift and drift factor (sometimes maybe more like 0.5).  Likewise, I've seen much worse (maybe at 2 or 2.5). 
I can't honestly say that from my experience the shift factor distribution is normal, so therefore I can't predict it ;).
Based on this, here's my proposal:

Get rid of the 1.5 shift factor in training, and explain only what long term shifts in the processes do to process performance.  
As a second step, explain how to calculate a short-term and long-term sigma value from a process.
Lastly, make a "continuous improvement" metric out of getting the long-term process sigma value closer to short-term sigma performance levels (minimizing process shifts).
At the very least, the above methodology should make the concept of "long-term shift" more understandable to new practitioners, and make it a practical tool as well.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:10:08 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Good Evening, Would You Like Some Nimawashi With That?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/good_evening_would_you_like_some_nimawashi_with_that.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, let me start by saying - its GREAT to be back!  After two years, a LOT can change from both a professional and personal standpoint, and I am really happy to contribute again!
To kick the conversation off, I'd like to talk a little bit about a concept called Nimawashi, which in the Toyota context means building consensus before taking definite action.  Seems like common sense, right?  Well, not always.  Let's look at a case study.
You have a major concept or breakthrough that you need upper management approval on, and you have to present at a decision meeting two weeks from now.  What process do you follow in order to be successful at selling your idea?  You decide to slave over a detailed presentation for the two weeks, sweating the event the whole time leading up to the actual meeting.  The meeting comes, and you present your idea.  At the end of your presentation, the questions start.  VP number 1 asks you a doosy, but you get by with a good answer.  VP number 2 asks you a another question that came out of nowhere, and you weren't prepared for it.  You say the "I'll get back to you on that, sir" line, and in the background you see the president looking at you with a skeptical look.
Needless to say...it didn't go that well - you get the idea.
So how can Nimawashi help you in the above circumstance?  The key enabler of Nimawashi is to allow you to build consensus on a topic before the major decision point.  In this case, the decision point is the meeting.  Using the concept of Nimawashi in the above example, before even beginning the presentation, your first priority is to make appointments with the key VP's one-on-one well ahead of the meeting so that you can present your ideas.  It's a lot easier to convey a new concept on a person-to-person basis instead of a whole audience, and you can also take advantage of the time to allow for questions one-on-one as well.  After a week of brief meetings with the VP's, you now have a week to answer any new questions or tweak your presentation in order to make it perfect for the meeting.  Now, when the event comes along, you have already "pre-aligned" your concepts with the key decision makers, and most likely they have already aligned with the boss (president in this case) as well.  At the end of the presentation, it's most likely that you will get a "rubber stamp" of approval - WHEW!
Now go ahead and implement that great idea!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:09:55 -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: Tours de Force at the Energy Forum]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/tours_de_force_at_the_energy_forum.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We have two great tours planned for the Energy Forum for Process Excellence. On Friday, May 22, in Houston, attendees will have the chance to see:
A. Halliburton Drill Bit Manufacturing Plant – Woodlands Facility
B. Cameron Gas Compressor Manufacturing Plant
Picking which one to go to will be a tough decision. And there are a limited number of spots on each.(Also, note: site tour hosts have reserved the right to decline attendees they consider competitors.)
See the full lineup of the four-day Energy Forum at:http://live.isixsigma.com/events/forum/houston/2009/agenda.html
Hope to see you there!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Jessica Harper]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:06:56 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Johnny the Bagger]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/johnny_the_bagger.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This was sent to me by a friend and I thought about how important it is that we view Continuous Improvement as so much more than measurement
http://www.stservicemovie.com/
ON Ward!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 08:38:54 -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: Sampling Poser]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/sampling_poser.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I thought I would share my views on a question frequently posed by newly trained belts. I imagine you to may have encountered this situation. I do not have a clear answer but have come-up with a theory. Could be right, could be wrong. 
We talk about the discrete sampling equation used to calculate minimum sample size
Minimum Sample Size = Square of (1.96 / Precision) * Est. Proportion * (1 – Est. Proportion)
For example, what is the sample size required to find, within 5%, the number of people who are left-handed using a starting assumption that 10% of the population are left-handed?
Minimum Sample Size = Square of (1.96 / 0.05) * 0.1 * (1 – 0.1) = 138
But what people ask is, what if there are more than two categorise? What if you want to know the sample size required to find the proportion of calls split into:

New Business Quotes 
Renewal Quotes 
Change of Service Quotes 
Administrative
Now I haven’t been able to find much of an answer to this question. I have come-up with a theory but I do not think it is statistically robust. Interested on comments and if there is an off-the-shelf statistical solution I have missed and can apply:

Build an exploratory sample- Start by assuming each category is equally weighted. So the estimated proportion for each is 25%. Using quite a wide precision (e.g. 10%) you get the sample size of 72. - To allow for the extra categorise multiple by the total number and divide by two, hence 72 * 4 / 2, to give a final sample size of 144. The result gives you a “feel for the proportions” but is by no means accurate.
Develop the proportions- You now have a feel for the proportions e.g. 60%, 30%, 10%, &amp; 10%. - Because sampling theory says that 50% proportions require the highest sample size use the proportion nearest to 50%. In this case the 60% one.- Calculate your sample size based on 60% so using 5% precision you get 369- Including the extra factor to allow for multiple categorise you get 369 * 4 /2, to give a final sample size of 738- You can then find your confidence interval from the results obtains
I have made-up this approach and have no idea if it will stand-up to scrutiny. Hopefully I am on the right-track. 
You never know it might become true like 1.5 sigma-shift…… ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:55:44 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Targets – Part 2]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/targets__part_2.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my last blog, Targets, I covered the situation of hitting time targets in a services environment. I thought I was onto something but wasn’t sure just what…….. 
Just to recap, people are targeted on delivering work within a certain time frame e.g. reply to a customer letter within X number of days. There was an understanding that this “drives the wrong behaviours” but no clarity on what to do. Here is what I have come to. 
What I did was look at the current measure and split time into value and non-value as shown.

Then I looked at the two time components and put together two principles:
1. The time an item is waiting in a queue should not be the handler’s problem; it’s a management problem. The idea of pushing people to “work harder” because of variation in demand doesn’t work and alternative solutions are required.2. The time that a handler is working on an item should not be driven by a time target but should be against a quality target. We want our people to do a great job as quality drives down rework, defects and costs.
Now the tricky bit, how to translate these principles into actual measures. What I looked for were rules for defining the measures and came to these from Vanguard


The measure should help in understanding and improving performance – capability measures rather than targets

The measure must relate to purpose – measure what is important to the customer

The measure must be integrated with work – the measures must be in the hands of the people who do the work
 Looking at these and my principles I came-up with two measures:


Lead Time - The time from receipt to when work starts. Leadership and not handlers own this. They are responsible for improving Lead Times by changing the system not “cracking the whip”

Right First Time – This is not a time measure but a quality measure. For each step in the process, the “Must-do” &amp; “Optional” requirements are defined. These are the items that ensure the work is done correctly without defects being created. It is as simple as a check-list to ensure work is done as required.
The approach extends across the whole life-cycle. This splits the process into value and non-value adding steps. It focuses the right people on doing the right things – leadership to reduce Lead Time by reducing waste in the process – handlers to improve Quality by defining, doing and measuring what is required. 
Sound good? I am already getting challenges and resistance. Would appreciate comment on the logic and how I could make the proposal even better….. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:18:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Puts the Shush! on Library Inefficiencies]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_puts_the_shush_on_library_inefficiencies.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
This morning as I was reading my Six Sigma news feeds, I came across a mention of the Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML) crediting Lean Six Sigma for their high service ratings. 
The use of Lean and Six Sigma outside the traditional business setting intrigues me…so I investigated further…It turns out that back in 2005 CML identified the combination of Lean and Six Sigma as the best fit for improvement at the Library and started right in using these methodologies as a way to reach their strategic objective to provide excellent customer service.  
In 2006, one of CML’s own Quality &amp; Process Specialists, Shaunessy Everett, wrote an excellent story about the initiative for Library Journal. This article is very well written, entertaining and very informative. Since this story is about a library, you’ll have to read it for yourself (no cliffs notes or summarizations here).Do More, Better, for Less, Library Journal, Sept. 2006
It’s not just Six Sigma that makes CML great.  Patrick Losinski, Executive Director at CML, is featured in a SmartBusiness article that highlights additional management philosophies embedded at CML that keeps them on the cutting edge. Nonprofits: Patrick Losinski, SmartBusiness, Dec. 2007
Six Sigma at CML is not an anomaly in the library business. Houston Library as well as a few academic libraries have been reading up on the very Six Sigma books they shelve.  Sarah A. Murphy, Associate Professor, University Libraries, Ohio State University, wrote an extensive paper titled “Leveraging Lean Six Sigma to Culture, Nurture, and Sustain Assessment and Change in the Academic Library Environment.”  And Dong-Suk Kim wrote, "A Study on Introducing Six Sigma Theory in the Library for Service Competitiveness Enhancement."
The next time you’re in Columbus, Ohio, be sure to visit the Columbus Metropolitan Library and check out Six Sigma.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:13:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Continuous Improvement is More Than Measurement]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/continuous_improvement_is_more_than_measurement.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Andrew’s recent reflections about the relevance of continuous improvement practitioners in these times mirror my thoughts with an added perspective.  If lean thinking and continuous improvement were only about measuring production and process I would wholly agree.  However, continuous improvement, in my mind, is more about positive change and moving toward perfection than it is specifically about process measurement.  Measurement of tasks completed and widgets made is one of many ways to determine if you are improving.  
Measurement of production tells you if you are meeting your goals.  It is a way of keeping score.  What about measuring the quality of life, attitude, self assessment, compassion, selflessness as it relates to employees and their families?  Certainly change and improvement is needed is this arena, a least for some corporate leaders. (peanuts and publically funded retention awards immediately come to mind).  
The tools of our trade cannot only include strategies to improve the measurement and thus quality of a process but must include teaching other less finite but still important concepts and work strategies related to maintaining a positive attitude in light of hard times.  If you re-read Henry Ford and see some of thepotentially overwhelming challenges he faced while developing his product and process, you will see this added tool of continuous improvement  being used. 
We are more than our measuring tools. We are human beings working towards perfecting work processes and in some cases the people that control those processes.  If we focus only on the process, we run the risk of making the people obsolete.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:20:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: WWDD?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/wwdd.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Perhaps you all arrived at this conclusion way ahead of me, but I’m starting to worry more and more about the way we, as continuous improvement professionals, are spending our time.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the world in general, and the economy in particular, has gone off meds. Yes, I know, this isn’t news at this point. But lest you think I’m the last one to get the message, seek out the open letter that John Stumpf, The CEO of Wells Fargo, recently placed in the New York Times and elsewhere. He was explaining his view on “the value of team member recognition”…which apparently boils down to paid travel to fun places in his mind. Clearly there’s at least one other person slower on the uptake than me.
The press has been all over this letter, including this piece by Maureen Dowd. I don’t have anything to say about it that hasn’t already been said by smarter people. But it does highlight that there is a true shift going on out there. What used to be reasonable, even commendable, has become detestable.
Deming exhorts me to create constancy of purpose, and Wheeler explains to me why reacting to random variation is a bad thing. I feel I have both and intuitive and statistical understanding of “special cause”, and I try to apply that understanding to the work in front of me. Usually that means resisting the tendency to chase special causes in favor of common cause work, and for a long time I have been confident that was the right thing to do.
But now? A lot of things are changing. Those changes feel drastic. Is it time to react in a special way? Or is this just fluctuation of the larger system? Do we keep running our Six Sigma programs, Lean initiatives, and Quality Management systems and wait it out? Or has the time come to move on to changes and initiatives that are more radical and sweeping? More special? Deming does advocate constancy of purpose, but in the next breath he points out the need to adopt a new philosophy for a new economic age. Which advice applies now? What would Deming do?
Let me offer a few more things to think on to frame this question. Continuous improvement programs usually rely on projects as units of work. Using various toolsets, each project is able to return more value to the organization than they consume in money and resources. Group a bunch of these projects together, add up the saving, and you have a program.
Successful programs might generate 5% productivity each year. In other words, if we do things right, we might produce 105% of what we produced last year for the same amount of money. Or maybe we produce the same amount for 95% of the cost. You get the idea. For the past several years, maintaining that sort of incremental improvement in consecutive years was a great result. 
But now? Your sales are down 80%. Your raw material cost are up 150%. You can’t spend $100,000 even for a guaranteed return of $125,000 because credit is frozen. Double digit percentage layoffs abound. In this environment, that ongoing 5% productivity that was great a few years ago is less than a rounding error compared to the huge swings that are happening largely outside our control.
Take Wiremold as a cautionary example. If you are reading this blog, there’s a good chance you already know something about this company from Womak and Jones’ book “Lean Thinking.”
Great company, hugely strong in Lean, right? Well, read this. Sure, there were clearly other factors involved, and maybe their commitment to Lean isn’t as strong as back in the day. But anyway you slice it, this is a titan in the continuous improvement world staggering from a serious blow. Lean can’t help if there is no demand. You can’t save your way to top line growth. It doesn’t matter how efficient you are if no one has money to buy what you are selling.
I think we at least need to ponder whether anything that we are doing matters at this point. Whether we are maybe even part of the problem. It’s easy to spank Wall Street CEOs as they assume the position in front of Congress, but are we just as guilty of failing to confront a new reality?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: This Should Come As No Surprise]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/this_should_come_as_no_surprise.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[AIG Said to Offer $1 Billion in Retention Payments to Employees As it turns out, this how AIG is choosing to spend part of the $150 Billion it received from the US Government, with much of it going to the very business units that caused AIG to falter in the first place. While the company maintains that these payments are part of contractual agreements that were disclosed in regulatory filings, the optics are horrible. Says one congressman, “I was extremely disappointed -- but not surprised -- to learn that AIG will be awarding bonuses to the very division that drove the company into the ground...”  
Why comment on this in a Six Sigma blog? To me it serves as an object lesson about the Improve/Control phase. So much of a Black Belt's time seems to be consumed by data gathering and analysis, measurement system analysis, and development of metrics. Analyze gets a fair bit of attention, although really identifying the true root causes can be extremely difficult. But the real devil is in the details - how is the improvement going to be designed, implemented, validated, and then controlled? GE Energy's CEO recently commented that a powerpoint and a plan isn't enough; it takes digging in deep to find the problems and develop robust solutions. 
Those of us at companies that have been doing Lean Six Sigma for several years may find that certain project areas are perennial favorites; the problems never get solved. Truly achieving control over processes (especially transactional ones) requires diligence, detailed procedures and training, regular audits and performance reviews, and corrective action when the outcomes deviate from requirements. In short, things that aren't nearly as much fun as drawing big red X's through non-value-added steps on a future state Value Stream Map.
So back to our disappointed, but not surprised, congressman. I have to ask - if you're not surprised, how could you have expected AIG to do any different? Why didn't the terms of the bailout cover such details? Didn't anyone analyze the situation sufficiently to uncover these possibilities - perhaps a quick FMEA? Did congress and the administration just hope that AIG would do the "right" thing with the bailout funds? 
Hope isn't a strategy - not in billion dollar government programs, and not in achieving performance excellence.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[James Considine]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:50:52 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What Sigma Value is your Food?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_sigma_value_is_your_food.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It seems like a month can not go by without some large scale food recall, with the latest being approximately 31 million pounds of peanut butter (due to salmonella contamination). I started to wonder what the sigma level for the aforementioned peanut butter would look like. According to a major news website, at least 500 people had been affected by the contamination, definitely an error when listening to VoC.  Assuming 500 illnesses with a batch size of 31 million pounds, I get a sigma value of 5.66. Of course this assumes batch size is the right opportunity to count. 
When I teach Six Sigma, there is a slide explaining how sigma values are calculated followed by another slide with sample values for given industries.  An example of an industry with a 6 sigma plus rating is airline safety.  Most industries will operate around a 2-3 sigma value for a given process. An example of a process that typically operates around 3 sigma is the accuracy of restaurant bills. In other words, the process is 93.3% accurate or for every one million bills, or 66,800 will have an error.
So as a consumer, should I be happy with a food that currently has a value of 5.66 sigma?  Is the media overreacting? I decided to do some research.  I googled DPMO and food and after 14,000 hits, decided to narrow my search to the FDA website.  The first thing I saw was a listing of over one hundred foods affected by the recent recall. Now if I assume a batch size per product or per manufacturer my number of opportunities just decreased significantly, however without a firm number of defects provided by the manufacturer, it would be impossible for me to calculate DPMO on a given brand name product.  
I found my search proved better when I changed from DPMO to PPM (parts per million). It turns out the FDA has an entire handbook on what number of defects are acceptable for all foods.  For example, the FDA considers a maximum defect level of 2% or more for apricots harvested for canning that have been damaged or infected by insects as acceptable.  A 98.2% defect fee yield translates into a sigma value of around 3.6.  Okay, so the process is better than restaurant bill accuracy but I’m not sure as a consumer I’m happy with this value (good thing I don’t eat apricots). 
Looking at coffee beans, if a batch is less than 10% insect infested/damaged, it is considered acceptable. This translates into a sigma value of around 2.8.  So I have a higher quality level with baggage handling at the airport (around 4 sigma) than purchasing green coffee beans. As someone who’s had their bags incorrectly routed twice, the results are unsettling.
In addition, the FDA website lists multiple types of defects (mold, insects, contamination, etc.). This gives one the availability to calculate DPU for some foods. After viewing the website (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Edms/dalbook.html), I’m not any more worried about the peanut butter outbreak compared to any of the other foods I eat.  Product traceability has allowed companies to pinpoint the exact extent of risk involved with the peanut butter and recall any questionable product. Whereas with other foods you purchase, the threat for defect is still there; it just isn’t as widely publicised by the media. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:43:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: Hitting Target]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/hitting_target.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Targets appear in all shapes &amp; sizes. Sometimes seen as positive, “we operate a target-driven culture” and sometimes negative, “targets drive the wrong behaviour”. So what is true? Given the sheer diversity of targets, I want to focus on a specific area, daily work targets in a services environment. Let’s look at a scenario.
Imagine an operator works in a services business. Work comes in three types and timing tests show each type can be completed within 20 minutes in most cases. Now imagine the operator being given items of work and being asked to work under two different management controls:

Control 1, Work items are targetted to be completed within 22 minutes. 
Control 2, There are no targets and work items must be completed regardless of the time required
Statistically speaking, an assessment of the two approaches could be made, something like:

Ho = There is no difference between the time taken to complete work items under control 1 or control 2
I am looking at running some tests to see if there is a difference as this is related to a project I am working. But what is your gut feel on the expected performance difference?
I have tried this in a very small trial and found that when working under a time target, you focus on the time target. As the pressure builds on any individual work item because you are watching the clock you find it more difficult to focus on the task in hand and end up missing the target. You lose valuable time because of the target.
So what does this show? Does this describe an example of why targets drive the wrong behaviour? Does it show that getting it right first time saves money? Does this show operator’s pulling work? Does this show a difference between batch and continuous flow?
I’m not sure but I feel I am looking at something quite important here, just not sure exactly what it is yet……..]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:39:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Christmas Challenge]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/christmas_challenge.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is just for fun and to win a real prize you need to have been very good all year and have a generous expense account.
Good old Santa wants to give you a Christmas present. He’s checked if you have been naughty or nice and the news is not good, so you have to pick the right present. One of the presents holds the all expenses-paid trip to iSixSigma Live (Miami - January 13-16) the other two presents hold copies of that classic text Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors.

But Santa is a kind fellow and knowing you are a statistician decides to give you a choice. He asks which present you have picked, maybe it was B. He looks thoughtfully and tells you the prize is definitely not present A, would you like to change your mind? What will you do? Click the link to see how you do.

No thanks Santa, I’ll stick with what I picked
Thank you Santa, I’ll change my mind
Interested in the stats? Take a look at this: Monty Hall.
Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;iSixSigma Live Events]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:49:34 -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: Christmas Lights - A Lean Challenge]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/christmas_lights_a_lean_challenge.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I got this from a friend and decided to share it with my friends at Six Sigma.  I thought this might represent the process many use when they don’t plan.  Just get the job done. Don’t worry about process or structure or planning.  Just do it. Hm.... You think a value stream map would help?
My wife has been on my case to get the lights up and I did it. Now I can’t figure out why she isn’t talking to me!
 
  
Happy Holidays
Stephen]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:06:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma on a Roll]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_on_a_roll.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last year iSixSigma Magazine ran a cover story on PointRoll and the beginnings of their Six Sigma initiative.  PointRoll, a leading online ad agency, is a small company by Fortune 500 revenue standards (less than 100 million in revenue) and even smaller Six Sigma company by Six Sigma standards (1 Black Belt and 7 Green Belts when they started).  
To some, such a small deployment may not make much sense, but to PointRoll, this little initiative makes dollars and cents in one hand and happy customers in the other.  
This year iSixSigma Magazine followed up with PointRoll both in the May/June and November/December issues to see where they had gone with Six Sigma. 
PointRoll focused their first projects in production engineering and creative services. Now with almost two years of project work under their belts, they continue to find more ways to improve the business.  In 2008 they introduced Lean and have trained 42 people in Lean principles.  Their deployment has now grown to 1 MBB, 3 BBs, 4 GBs and 2 Lean Belts and they have started a DMADV project as well.
PointRoll’s Chief Executive Officer, Jason Tafler, will be a keynote speaker at the iSixSigma Live! Miami conference in January.  A "must see" for small companies just starting out on the Six Sigma journey. He’ll give insights on how his company has built a solid Six Sigma culture amidst a cool atmosphere of creativity and innovation.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:25:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Thriving on Chaos]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/thriving_on_chaos.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I used to work in the IT business and we were always on the look-out for the next “big thing” to cash in on. It was things like moving from mainframes to open systems and onto Microsoft Windows, relational databases, business intelligence systems, OLAP reporting and CRM systems. 
So while I was travelling home from Sydney (around 1995) after a weeks consulting, I read about the next big thing, it was called the World Wide Web. This was going to be big, bigger than big. People working in IT should get ready to cash in on this next big growth market. Turns out to have been more than right, but the article didn’t go BIG enough!
And how the world has changed. In the olden days (pre-WWW) my options to get information were limited. Today I can access just about anything directly on my computer. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but working in such an information rich environment does have its challenges.
I sometimes feel a bit overwhelmed by the sheer number of options, methods and approaches I can choose from. There does not seem be a part of human existence that someone hasn’t studied, developed a methodology and written a best selling book. I struggle to know which to believe or which to follow. Every year there are new crops of ways to solving problems, things like Blue Ocean/Red Ocean and Good to Great. So I have come-up with a way to deal with information over-load
I recently went into a second-hand book-shop and couldn’t believe my luck. I managed to buy a first-edition copy of the Tom Peter’s classic Thriving on Chaos for only £1. I don’t think the copy I bought had ever been opened let alone read! What Tom offers is a series of about 40 lessons in management &amp; leadership. 
So here is what I do. Along comes the next radical break-through innovation that will completely change the world, just like the World Wide Web. I thumb through Thriving on Chaos to see how it was done back in 1987. It’s my baseline.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Book Review&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:32:55 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Sticky Solutions]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/sticky_solutions.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You invest 4 months of your life. You work in close co-operation with the operational teams. You gain buy-in and agreement on an innovative solution to enhance business performance. You build sustainability into the solution. You identify clear benefits in terms of financial, process, people and customer. It’s a text-book project. 
So return in 6 months time and what do you find? Rip-roaring success? No it’s been forgotten, the benefits were never banked and the pilot performance improvement was just a blip. Everything is back to “normal”.
It was a simple solution. Implement a feedback-loop to support continual learning. 
When information is passed from team A to team B, team B return feedback to team A on the accuracy of the information supplied. Team A review this feedback and continually improve their process. Everyone wins……..or do they. Team A had more work to do in learning from the feedback and decided not to learn. 
What can I learn from this? Thoughts go off in all directions on why there was the resistance to change. Maybe it was the feeling that they were being “done to”? Maybe it was because they weren’t being incentivised on achieving the improvement? Maybe it was because there is so much change in progress that this got lost in the fog? Maybe more people should have been hired to allow the change to happen? Maybe, maybe, maybe.
Tips please on how to make solutions stick.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:22:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Bragging Rights]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/bragging_rights.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Winning isn’t everything; in fact, many times a “win” is in finishing the race or improving the score, whether that means fewer defects, decreased cycle time and/or improved customer satisfaction. But there are times when a win is a win and calls for more attention than is usually given to the everyday job well done. Such an instance recently happened.
iSixSigma Magazine was honored by the American Society of Business Publication Editors (ASBPE) in its 30th Annual Awards of Excellence. The magazine received two regional awards among publications under 80,000 in circulation:

Gold in the original research category for “Six Sigma Saves a Fortune” (January/February 2007)
Bronze in the case history category for “Processing of Damaged Inventory” (March/April 2007)
For a national organization to recognize our work as outstanding is indeed an honor. Entries are judged by experienced business editors across the country and in varying industries. 
The fact that these two entries garnered the esteem of the judges is no surprise. We entered the Final Tollgate project review and Research report because those features are favorites of readers and of ours. The authors and team members invest a significant amount of time and effort on them. In particular, Research Manager Michael Marx and Executive Editor Erin Ducceschi pour hours into ensuring that the information is relevant, complete, accurate and useful. And that’s just the bones – much more goes into polishing an article before it’s published.
Working with such a knowledgeable, talented team is exciting. And it’s even more exciting to get to brag about their accomplishments.
Check out the articles in the digital edition:
"Six Sigma Saves a Fortune”"Processing of Damaged Inventory”
If you aren’t a subscriber, you can sign up at isixsigma-magazine.com.
Speaking of awards, don’t miss your chance to be “award winning.” iSixSigma is accepting entries until Nov. 1 for several awards that will recognize breakthrough improvement:

iSixSigma’s Six Sigma Hall of Fame 
Largest Breakthrough Improvement projects in several categories 
Lean Six Sigma Start-up or Re-energized Six Sigma Program
Find out more at live.isixsigma.com/awards.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Jessica Harper]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:34:38 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: My journey towards Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/my_journey_towards_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I started in continuous improvement (CI) four years ago it was via the traditional Six Sigma DMAIC route. I was indoctrinated into the Six Sigma world and have earned my ASQ CSSBB and can do impressive stuff with statistics. Lean was not even on the radar for me, it was just another approach that was used to solve the easy stuff. It did not have the rigour to make lasting improvements.
Then Lean appeared through our training material and we merged it to become Lean Six Sigma. But it was an unequal partnership. We had the DMAIC model with Lean as a bolt-on included in the Analyse phase. It focussed on analysing and removing waste in the process. It was a pretty easy concept; by removing waste you become a Lean business. And that’s how it stayed, everyone understood Lean.
Meanwhile I had nagging doubts that pure Six Sigma did not provide a complete package. There are the obvious issues around needing to include project management, stakeholder management, soft-skills training and deployment program management. There was also the concern that it was too generalist as specialist niches become prevalent, e.g. Customer Experience theory now goes way beyond the VoC approach. 
It started with The Goal. I really liked the concept of managing your process around exploiting the constraints &amp; bottle-necks. Then I met a few people who had started their CI journey from Lean who talked about different concepts &amp; approaches. Then I met someone who was a Systems Thinker and they thought Six Sigma was just plain wrong. Give these quotes a go, (more in a follow-up blog as I am still reading the book):

It starts with ‘define’ so the wrong problems get tackled, not the actual problems, which will only be revealed when you study the organisation as a system.
Loads of money is spent on training tools, most of which will never be used; and tools are not the means for changing the system. 
The reporting systems ensure benefits are ‘realised’ but they are, most often, spurious e.g. claiming productivity improvements through speeding up part of a process with no knowledge of the impact on the end-to-end process 
It has been used to focus on cost; managers should instead get focused on value as the better way to reduce costs and increasing capacity. 
In short, Six Sigma is a classic packaged invention aimed at gullible managers. The wrong facts are misleading; we should salute its demise.
All good stuff to challenge the orthodoxy. So I have been studying pure Lean. First problem I had was translating the tools out of manufacturing into a service organisation. With things like SMED you seem to have to abstract the concept and look for applications. Or 5S, it’s not a safety issue having a messy desk and I am doubtful on the benefits (I have a clean desk). But as I got deeper I found this doesn’t do Lean justice, the fundamental principles and practises go way beyond “just eliminate waste”. Lean seems to provide much more in terms of the complete package and inparticular around empowering people.
As ever, I still have my doubts e.g. how does break-though innovation happen in a Lean environment? And what about the “Lean is just removal of waste” label? But it has definitely shifted my thinking. Now I am "Learning to See" I wonder if there are any other approaches I should be looking at?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:46:13 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Take a Walk on the W.O.W. Side]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/take_a_walk_on_the_wow_side.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[                TM                     
Good enough is just not good enough anymore and has not been for a long time.  We have become a society of "I want it all" and "I want it now".  Today, in particular, as prices continue to rise and people are feeling the pinch, customers are becoming less tolerant of errors, delays and poor service and instead are demanding excellence.  The time is right for a resurgence of customer delight.  How?  By providing Customer W.O.W.        
What’s Needed   -     On Time   -    With Value 
Sounds simple, but if it was, anyone could do it.  What makes creating W.O.W. so tricky is that the components are constantly changing.  "What’s Needed" today will be old news tomorrow.  If you don’t believe that ask anyone with a teenager.  It would seem that as soon as you buy the latest cell phone with all the bells and whistles, another phone hits the market that does twice as much.  
The definition of "On Time" has also taken on new meaning.  The "I want it now" mentality requires that products and services be delivered exactly when the customer wants them and technology has made this expectation a reality.  Need a book - download it.  Want some shoes - order from Zappos and get them delivered the next day.   Wait two weeks for anything - are you kidding?
But the most volatile component of the W.O.W. equation is "With Value".   Value is defined as relative worth, merit or importance.  And yes - it is the customer that will define this for your product or service.  And yes, they can change their definition as often as they want.
Like it or not, the road to Customer W.O.W. is constantly changing.  If you want to "Take a Walk on the W.O.W. Side"™ you’ll need to figure out how to quickly adapt to these changing needs.   Join me over the next several weeks as we step our way through a framework for creating customer W.O.W.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:57:40 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Rigmarole]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/rigmarole.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Six Sigma is an amazingly persistent program. I was left off the list for the official birth announcement, but someone should probably be planning ahead for a thirtieth birthday party in the next few years. That’s remarkable longevity for trumped up flavor-of-the-month program.
I think Six Sigma is utterly absurd in many respects. Even if you love the methodology, you have to admit that the jargon and belt terminology are over the top. Honestly, to the uninitiated we must sound like a group of arcane techno-monks spoiling for a fight. We're the drag queens of the quality world. Six Sigma training methods are generally excruciating, and often rooted in dubious pedagogy. Quality control at the program level is non-existent. Statistical methods are routinely abused. Many conclusions reach are just plain wrong. I can see all this quite clearly, and I like the program.
So why does Six Sigma survive? If it is patently ridiculous, potentially misleading on crucial questions, and generally very annoying, why do people keep using it? The answer is simple, I think: because despite all that, it works. But not for the reasons you might expect.
Consider the window dressing that accompanies a full-blown Six Sigma project. For the sake of this example, let’s assume we’re looking at one of the first projects in an organization. The process probably kicked off with the search for a consulting partner. Six Sigma consultants come at great expense, so some native set of requirements likely kicked in that required multiple consultancies to be evaluated by a high-level team. Once the consultant was picked, candidates for training had to be selected. Because the training is so expensive, this again required a great deal of concerted time and attention from the organization. Ditto for project selection. Finally training takes place, and everyone has to learn a whole new dictionary. The project gets rolling, toll gate reviews start up, and they’re unlike any project meetings ever seen before. No one really understands anything. Questions are asked, arguments begun, experts called in. Eventually paths forward are determined, and execution starts. Implementation is carefully staged and monitored because, let’s face it, no one involved can afford for the project to fail at this point. Results occur, processes are changed, metrics are reported, and success is celebrated. Everyone is happy, and not a little bit relieved. Now repeat, and repeat, and repeat.
That’s a lot of rigmarole. And it’s generally considered to be the ugly side of Six Sigma, the messy underbelly that necessarily accompanies the elegant statistical approach, the data driven decision making. But I think that view gets it backward, suggests that the tail wags the dog. Far from being undesirable, I think all that rigmarole is actually what adds the value in the whole process. I’m convinced the content of the program is immaterial. All the program content needs to do is trigger the window dressing, because the window dressing is what gets the right people in the room.
Let me put it another way. Many companies hire consultants to do things that they supposedly cannot do for themselves. But it is sometimes the case that consultants come in to the organization and seek answers to the question being asked entirely within the organization. Which is strange because logically, consultants are not needed if the answer is already present in the population hiring the consultant. (If you haven’t experienced this phenomenon you might think I‘m making it up. But ask around, because I’m sure you won’t have to go too far to find someone who can provide relevant story from your part of the world.) Development of corporate strategy is an archetypal example. So why use consultants in such cases? They are extremely expensive, and the answer is already there. Well, you use them precisely because they are expensive. Writing that check triggers a set of behaviors in the organization. It forces important players to take notice. It makes it politically dangerous to ignore the outcome of the project. It means people show up at meetings and complete their action items on time. And all that means that the answer is suddenly taken very seriously, even if it was known all along, and even if it happens to be incorrect.
I think Six Sigma works the same way. The crushing structure, bureaucracy, and cost of a deployment sends all kinds of signals to the organization that the program is important and needs to be taken seriously. I’m not saying it makes sense, but I am saying it works. All the rigmarole serves the very important purpose of getting the right people in the room, which means decisions can be made and execution can happen. The guts of the program don’t matter, as long as it serves that purpose in the end. Six Sigma does this by accident rather than by design, but it nonetheless does it very well. And that’s why I think we should probably be planning for a thirtieth birthday party.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Company Policy – Help or Hindrance?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/company_policy__help_or_hindrance.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently bought some registry cleaning software on the internet using PayPal. My mistake, it was a scam. I made contact with the PayPal Dispute Resolution team to see if I could get my money back. Followed the highly efficient process (no human interaction) and made repeated attempts to contact the supplier before escalating to PayPal to resolve. Automated e-mail response, it is not their company policy to resolve this type of situation. I sent a follow-up e-mail but got another response talking about, “we are unable to blah, blah, blah….” So made contact with my credit card company and they gave me an immediate refund, their company policy was to resolve this type of situation.
Given I represent about 0.000000001% of their revenue I’m not a big loss, but to what degree can company policy be an incentive or disincentive to the customer experience?  
A company policy sets the guidelines for a companies activities and helps staff in areas where there appears to be latitude in deciding how best to operate. You could see company policy as one-way of defining the culture of the company and what is seen as important.

In a bureaucratic culture the policy might be shown as over complicated forms, slow decision making and having to always follow the company defined process
In a cost-cutting culture the policy might be shown as looking to use the cheapest channels to market (e.g. web &amp; e-mail) with a gradual decline in overall proposition
In a profit-driven culture the policy might be shown in overuse of cross-sell and up-sell and constant marketing communications
In a political culture the policy might be shown as a fragmented proposition as different teams use customers for their own political games
In a customer-centric culture the policy might show empowered staff being given the flexibility to do what’s right for the customer 
So when designing a customer policy it seems the key question to answer is, “from whose point of view should it be done?” From a Lean Six Sigma perspective this should be “outside-in” focussing on the Voice of the Customer. Not, to quote Carol from Little Britain, “Computer says no”. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:03:20 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Back to Basics]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/back_to_basics.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently spent the night in Chicago at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place.  When I arrived, I could tell by the friendly faces and fast moving check-in lines that they have been listening to the Voice of the Customer.  But the big surprise came at 5 a.m. the next day.   I like having a back-up to my alarm and always ask for a wake-up call.  When the phone rang the next morning I lifted the receiver anticipating the yip-yak of some computer generated voice alerting me that it’s time to get moving.  Instead, I was pleasantly surprised by a real person.  "Hello Mrs. Clark, This is your 5 a.m. wake-up call."  I immediately responded "Thank you" and received a "Your Welcome, I hope you enjoy your day in Chicago".  I smiled.  How very nice, I thought.  They even reminded me which city I woke up in. (Those of you who travel a lot can appreciate this)  
It is funny how such a small gesture can make a big difference.  Just the fact that I am talking about it four days later lets you know what an impression it made (Net promoter score will be high on this one).   I wonder if somewhere along the way in our zeal to cut cost and automate everything that we’ve lost the personal touch that makes us human.  Maybe it’s time we revisit the Voice of the Customer and get "Back to Basics."]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:53:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Laundering]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_laundering.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There’s been quite a bit of Six Sigma laundering going on these days…Gianna’s post, Dirty Socks, Ron Pereira's posts, Laundy Kaizen and How to Fold a T-Shirt in Two Motions, and now we have this video segment from MSNBC.  
Northeast Laundromat owners Leonard and Jennifer Cooperman, in St. Petersburg Florida, were the recipients of MSNBC’s Your Business small business makeover. MSNBC brought in Six Sigma consultant and author Greg Brue to sort through the dirty laundry and come up with data based suggestions for improving their business.  
I think it’s a nice piece on Six Sigma for small business. Watch and enjoy.  (It’s only 4:24 plus an introductory ad.)
 
My marketing suggestion for Leonard and Jennifer Cooperman…two words: Seth Godin.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:52:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Thinking Ahead]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/thinking_ahead.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One of the central problems all organizations face is balancing long term thinking with short terms needs. It is clear that time and resources need to be devoted to both; companies that live moment to moment don’t survive very long, while those that focus on the big picture without worrying about the details usually don’t live long enough for their vision to matter. So the question isn’t which is more important, the question is how to do both simultaneously.
The strategies :

Ask everyone in the organization to simultaneously focus on long term vision and short term execution. 
This is the most intuitively attractive answer. It’s the one that various business books and seminars recommend. And it would be a great strategy if it could be pulled off, but I’ve never seen it happen. Toyota might be a counter-example based on books I have read, but I’m guessing insiders could educate me about the ways in which it is difficult there as well. If you know of others, please comment.
The problem with this strategy in my experience is that firefighting always wins. No business I’ve ever seen has been willing to let a short term issue fester in favor of providing time for employees to think about the long term. “Oh, I’m sorry we just short-shipped out biggest customer…but we’re in a long range planning retreat this week so I’ll deal with it on Monday”. That sort of thing gets you fired at most companies. There’s no question which takes precedence.
Interestingly, I think continuous improvement as it is practiced today is part of the problem rather than the solution. Many companies now run so lean in terms of personnel that there is no excess capacity to fight minor fires, and everything becomes an emergency. At the same time, positions on the floor and elsewhere have been time-studied to death, so there is no extra seconds in the day to devote to long term thinking. Individual projects are optimized like crazy with very little though given to the whole. I know it’s not supposed to be this way, but often it is.
The answer to this is widely seen as the next strategy.

Ask everyone to worry about long term vision and strategy at certain times, while focusing on short term execution the rest of the time.
Future state mapping is a great example of this strategy. You haul people out of their normal responsibilities for a few days to consider what the future state should look like. People who are practiced at this develop not only an ideal state, but a few interim states along the way as well. Then when the mapping is done, the team goes back to their regular jobs, which are usually execution focused.
The follow-on strategy often involves projects and/or Kaizen events. Both of those can work. Projects work by forcing project leaders (and sometimes their teams) to continue working towards a long term goal, balancing that with their short term responsibilities. In essence this strategy works by forcing the first strategy (above) to occur for some period of time. Because projects are inherently limited in duration, this can be successful. Kaizen events, on the other hand, work by forcing the second strategy to occur for some period of time. Both projects and Kaizen events function by preventing the natural tendency of an organization to focus on short term needs.
The problem with this strategy is that the short term and long term thinking usually become divorced from one another. The classic example of this is annual “Strategic Planning” (which goes by many names), wherein everyone works like crazy for a month or two to prepare an X-year plan and get approval for it up the chain. Then once that’s done, the plan it put away and never seen again. Everyone goes back to managing the short term. Projects and Kaizen events still occur – and may even help the organization –but they are rarely explicitly connected to the broad strategic plan.
Recognition of this tendency is, I think, what makes the third strategy most common.

Employ a few people to worry full-time about long term vision and strategy, while most others focus on short term execution.
This is a very common answer. Maybe the most common. Especially in corporations for which selling the product (or otherwise dealing with a customer) is resource intensive. Consider a retail chain, for example. If there are  1000 people working for the company, 900 of them might be on the sales floor selling products directly to customers. Another 50 might work in logistics (distribution, transportation, warehousing, etc), perhaps another 25 are support staff of some sort. On a good day, that might leave 25 people to think about long term strategy for the company. And not just standard business strategies like how to market, what to sell, and where to operate, but also things like how to attract and retain employees, where to hedge and where to spot-buy, and who to fire. Oh, and maybe how to run a continuous improvement program.
If you are part of an organization, you probably already know the problems that crop up here. In the example above, 25 people who are sitting somewhere other than the front lines are trying to determine strategy for the 975 who actually know first-hand what is going on. The ones who are closest to direct feedback and subtle shift are the ones least empowered to influence and select the strategy. It’s a set up doomed to failure for all but the most talented (and rare) of leaders. It’s a strategy that looks good in theory, but is devilishly hard to successfully practice. And even when you get it right, you’re not taking advantage of the knowledge and expertise of all those people out in the field.
The saving grace for this strategy, and the reason it is so common, is that it is a stable structure. Even if it isn’t a great strategy overall, it’s better than the other two because it is tenable. It is a compromise way for the organization overall to pay attention to both short term and long term thinking, even if no individual within the company is doing so. It survives and flourishes not because it is a great way of doing things, but because it is slightly better than the alternatives.
Is there a better way?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Manufacturing]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/manufacturing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For a hobby last year I started making cider (hard cider in the US). Below are some of the demijohns of apple juice I fermented. 

I cracked open a finished bottle and it looked &amp; smelt great, but the taste…. it was insipid, slightly acidic and low in alcohol. Not good. Being in the business of continuous improvement and this being my second year I am ready to develop my manufacturing process.
I have researched the issues and my proposed solutions are.

Insipidness: I believe was due to using just eating apples, it should have been a blend of eating, cooking and crab apples. Here is a sample of my raw materials



Acidity: I have my pH tester and acid reduction solution.

Alcohol: I have my hydrometer and bag of sugar to up the alcohol content. 
So the question is what makes the perfect product? What better than to design an experiment. Being by no means an expert in the practical design of DoE, here is my endeavour. The factors &amp; levels seem to be:




 Factor
 Levels

 pH reading 
 Two levels. Initial pH of blend or set to pH of 3.8 (which is highest recommended level)

 Sugar content
 Two levels. Initial natural sugar content or adjusted to give final product of 7% alcohol

 Apple Blend
 Tricky, I want to try different combinations but not at the extremes of 100% of any one. I would like to get my blends by having variations of eating apples from 40 to 80%, cooking apples from 40 to 80% and crab apple from 0 to 20%. Not sure on this bit yet, could do with some help
The output will be taste tests scored from 0 to 10. I have a limited number of trails as I only have 8 demijohns. this should create the product to scale-up next year. Any tips on the best design to ensure I get good results?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:35:13 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Houston, TX Lean and Six Sigma Pros Unite!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/houston_tx_lean_and_six_sigma_pros_unite.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There will be a Lean and Six Sigma meeting in Houston, TX, on Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM. Tom Tatevasion of Cameron will host the event. Tom will provide an overview of the group, a tour of the Cameron Compression Systems facility, and discuss their Lean Six Sigma program.
If you live in Houston and are practicing Lean or Six Sigma, you do not want to miss this event.
To learn more:
Join the iSixSigma Network on LinkedIn
Learn more about this learning and networking event]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:10:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Flawed Tie-breaking Rule at Olympics Costs U.S. Gymnast a Gold Medal]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/flawed_tie_breaking_rule_at_olympics_costs_us_gymnast_a_gold_medal.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[An arbitrary and statistically flawed tie-breaking rule cost Nastia Liukin of the United States the gold medal in the women’s uneven bars competition at the Olympics earlier this month, according to Dr. Prasad Raje, CEO of Instantis.
After looking at the tied scores of gymnasts Liukin and He Kexin of China, Raje figures that Liukin actually had a “statistically superior score because there was less variance in the judge’s opinions on who performed better.”
The gymnasts scored the same down to the third decimal place by using the average score from six judges and throwing out the high and low score. So Liukin had scores of 9, 9, 9 and 9.1, and Kexin had scores of 9.1, 9.1, 8.9 and 9. According to the tie-break rule, the winner is determined by throwing out the low score of the four valid remaining scores. As a result, a 9.0 was dropped from Liukin’s scores and an 8.9 from Kexin’s. This meant the outcome was based on the opinions of only three judges – and tilted the gold in favor of Kexin.
Instead of throwing out data points, the judges should have kept all the valid data points, and done a statistical analysis of the “quality” of the data, Raje says. Here’s a figure he developed:

The statistical spread in Liukin’s scores is significantly lower (0.0500) than that of Kexin’s (0.0954). Therefore, according to Raje, Liukin should have got the gold medal.
This shows that those who run the Olympics might find it to their advantage to add a Six Sigma practitioner to their rules committee.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Jessica Harper]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:21:59 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Gage M&amp;M]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/gage_mampm.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
The good folks at Minitab just released a sweet little article about using M&amp;M’s to teach statistics.  It’s called Sweetening Statistics and is written by Michelle Paret and Eston Martz.
If you’ve been through traditional classroom Black Belt training you’ve probably already done these exercises yourself as they have been a part of the traditional Black Belt curriculum for years.  I sure remember them from my Black Belt training days… Break out a few bags of M&amp;M’s during a moment like this and the class goes wild.
The article shows how you can use the measurable qualities of M&amp;M’s to teach many statistical tests including: 1-sample t, paired t, proportion, Chi Square, and Correlation.  They are even good for teaching Gage R&amp;R.  I’d plan on at least on bag per test, M&amp;M’s have a way of disappearing faster than they can be measured...
So the next time one of your friends asks what it is you do for a living, make a party out of it and invite a group over for dessert, then FIRE UP MINITAB!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:49:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Small Change Big Impact]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/small_change_big_impact.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Across the globe food prices are rising rapidly. The potential causes are many including big ticket issues like rising demand in emerging markets, oil prices, bio fuels, trade tariffs, global warming, population growth and tight supplies. With all that lot stacked-up its no wonder that prices are going up. Big problems call for big solutions and we have innovations such as GM technology and global cooperation coming to the fore.
But just how efficient is the value-chain of food production? How much waste is built into the process? 
Here in the UK, a recent study by Waste &amp; Resources Action Programme estimated that one third of food people buy is thrown away unused. The report makes incredible reading and examples of annual waste include 1.2 million sausages &amp; 4.4 million apples. This inflates the cost of food as more has to be produced to compensate for the waste.
What kind of improvement could we get if we just ate what we bought? 
Another example is the European Union’s food quality standards that specify the dimensions that fruit &amp; vegetables must reach in order to be class one. Hence if it’s out of spec it doesn’t get through. The food is not dirty, rotten or diseased just misshapen. Luckily these rules are planned to be rolled-back as commented by an EU spokesperson, “People are saying that prices are too high, it makes no sense to be chucking food away. We want to have two classes, allowing supermarkets to sell funny shaped vegetables”. It’s just another form of waste. I have no figures on how much is lost in this part of the value-chain.
I noticed a recent example in the US election. There was talk about how to solve demand for oil and the need to start drilling offshore. Barack Obama comes in with “keep your tyres correctly inflated”. Not sure on the math but throw in cars with better mileage and I would guess its going to have an impact.
The point is it’s just the same in business; there are always the low-hanging fruit (and veg?). Start by doing the big easy wins that cut unnecessary waste. In general they are not particularly radical but can have dramatic outcomes.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:54:30 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Creativity and Lean Process Analysis]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/creativity_and_lean_process_analysis.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This morning as I read Sue Kozlowski’s blog about her husband and the “common sense” factor of lean six-sigma process analysis, I decided to apply this thinking to a recent experience at work. Are there work environments where process analysis should not be applied? Where common sense is the standard? Here is my thought process. 
I recently participated in a collective bargaining negotiation in a public sector organization. I was on the team representing a class of employees who were requesting a reclassification of their pay scale. The process moved from opening statements by each side, directly into negotiation when management made a request to discuss a settlement compromise. Since the arbitrator is hired by both sides to resolve the conflict with a decision based on the evidence presented or some other resolution, he facilitated this mediation process. This certainly was lean thinking at first. If an agreement could be reached we would reduce the time muda that hours of testimony would take up. However, the result was quite the opposite. The management team left the room and the arbitrator volleyed back and forth between the conference rooms we each occupied carrying offers and counter offers. After six hours, where testimony might have taken only three or four, we had a agreement that could be presented to membership for a vote. Now the vote will take a few weeks and if rejected we are back at the hearing with no result and lots of time wasted, but if it is accepted time is saved.  Common sense might have motivated the arbitrator to still take testimony, but how much time might that have taken? The final outcome in any deliberation can not be easily predicted or measured as is possible with finite quantifiable processes.
I wondered… what other work environments is the human interpretation element an integral part of the work? Congress, medicine, education? Can lean thinking be applied to the legal or other professional systems of work? Can careful deliberation be quantified, time limited or standardized? Can the professional judgments made by judges, lawyers, doctors, counselors or teachers be standardized? My prima facie conclusion is no. Certainly much of the administrative process can be standardized, but analyzing data from human interpersonal behavior and related biological or psychological function is subject to multiple factors and may not be easily quantified or standardized. As trained professionals gain experience their decisions come quicker as various familiar senarios appear. That timely critical analysis skill is an important factor in assessing professional competance and value. How do you measure that experience? 
That being said… I have some measurable chores to do at home today and the deliberation required to write this column is using that precious time. Hm… choice, creative activity or necessary survival tasks? Balance is the key. Have a great Saturday. 
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:24:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Being Right]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/being_right.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There are countless business books out there that present good reasons why it is not necessary to be 100% right all the time. Beyond being unnecessary, I think being completely right is highly over-rated in the context of business. Being 80% right and good at executing is probably more than sufficient in most cases. Not all cases, of course, but most. Being 50% or even 25% right and good at executing is certainly better than being 100% right and unable to execute. But clearly, this message is not getting through to the Six Sigma crowd.
I say this because the majority of philosophical conversations I hear about continuous improvement still revolve around a driving need to be right. These range from high level (Is Lean or Six Sigma the right program for this company? Have we got the right set of tools? Are our senior executives saying the right things?) to very specific (Are we doing measurement system analysis right? Do we have the right project selection process? Is our interpretation of capability indices right?). But they all rest on a common assumption that being right about the various aspects of continuous improvement is necessary.
I’ll do the 80% contingent one better and propose that being right is neither necessary nor sufficient for a continuous improvement program like Six Sigma to work. I’m not even sure it is worth worrying about.
The sufficiency clause is easier to argue, because libraries are filled with books by people that are right. Deming was right. Shewhart was right. Ishikawa was right. Juran was right. Womack is right. Wheeler is right. There are even some consultants out there who are right. Plenty of people over time have got things right. But there are still many of organizations doing it wrong, even though they’ve read all of the books and hired the consultants. So clearly being right isn’t sufficient for being successful.
There is also ample evidence that being right isn’t necessary for being successful. I’ve seen multitudinous cases where flawed methodology or assumptions were used to generate genuine process improvements. And not just by luck. There are plenty of Green Belts and Black Belts out there who misuse the statistical toolset they have been handed and still turn out great results. Same thing for Lean or any other methodology you care to mention.
Indeed, this latter phenomenon is a fixation both in the community and in the popular business press. There are plenty of detractors out there who gleefully point at holes in the methodology, highlight inappropriate shortcuts, and take pride in identifying errors. I’m tired of hearing from those people…not because they are incorrect, but because what they are correct about doesn’t matter. What those folks don’t realize is that being wrong doesn’t have much of an impact on the success of the program as a whole. Because being right is almost irrelevant.
You only have to be vaguely right – let’s say 25% for the sake of argument – to have a program that adds significant value for an organization. That’s because the real value of these programs is forging a common approach and methodology across the organization. Getting people on the same page and (to mix metaphors) marching in the same direction.
Let me put it another way. Take the usual assumptions about running a successful program. Any book, consultant, or expert will tell you that the following are needed (your list may vary):

The support of senior management
Top-notch training on the methodology
The best people assigned to the most important problems
Adequate resources, support, and budget
The focus of the organization for a sustained period of time
My point is simply this: if you manage to get all of those things in place, what you decide on as the content of the program is largely immaterial. You want to teach DMAIC? Fine. Want to make Lean your thing? Fine. Want to invent your own methodology? Fine. Want to have hula classes and a luau every Friday? Fine. It really doesn’t matter. The entire point of the program is to force the bullet points above to happen. Do whatever you have to do, call the program whatever you have to call it, just make sure those things happen. Because once they do, the rest is just details. Hula and luau can work just as well as Lean and Six Sigma.
This, ironically, is why Six Sigma has been so successful and so long-lived. Not because it is especially right - Lord knows there are holes in the philosophy and methodology you could drive a truck through. (1.5 sigma shift, anyone? CpK without control charts, anyone? I could go on…) But rather because it is very, very good at motivating the organization towards the goals described above. And that turns out to be much more important than being right.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean; Your Proverbial ‘Boot In The Door’]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_your_proverbial_boot_in_the_door.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have recently completed a ‘Five S’ (see isixsigma dictionary) on a materials procurement process, and have had the most buy in this year for process improvement. Why?

Because especially ‘Sort’ is simple for all to understand, it’s basically an organised spring clean
You leave your FIRST meeting with a plan of action that can be executed within days, this often takes longer with DMAIC
Because the results are visual. Always take before and after photos
Once you have this win and have been seen to deliver, you can start putting more intricate process improvement methods in place like Value Stream Mapping, data collection etc without your stakeholders noticing or even better with their consent.
 
I am interested in your experiences and first impressions of deploying Lean ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 07:14:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Cargo Cults]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/cargo_cults.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can’t remember the first time I head the concept of a “Cargo Cult” used as a business analogy. But I can recall thinking that it was a powerful way to explain the dangers of throwing money and resources around trying to duplicate what another company had done without really taking the time to understand exactly what they did and why they did it. There were obvious applications to Six Sigma deployments in particular, since Six Sigma is rife with rituals and jargon.
And I was right. It was very effective. So I used the analogy in conversation, in training, and during presentations with great frequency for quite a while. Others were out there doing the same. At some point I became convinced that everyone in the world must have heard the story. Plus, I’m not a big fan of making arguments by analogy because you open yourself up to a simple, but devastating criticism. So for the past few years I stopped talking about Cargo Cults.
Then, the other day, I brought the Cargo Cult idea up in conversation again. To my surprise, no one around the table had heard of it, and they all reacted enthusiastically. I admit the possibility that the crowd was just being polite, but on the other hand maybe it’s time to polish this chestnut and put it back on display. If you’ve heard it a million times, you can stop reading now. If you haven’t…
I’m not sure if he was the first to do so, but Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman eloquently described Cargo Cults it in his 1974 Commencement Address at CalTech as an evocation of science done badly:

"In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land."
The entire speech is available here if you want Feynman's context, but it's not essential to the story.
An interesting fact (but also not essential) is that Cargo Cults are real. Wikipedia has some history, and also makes the following point:

"From time to time, the term 'cargo cult' is invoked as an English language idiom, to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance."
If you’ve ever worked on a Six Sigma deployment, this has to sound familiar. How many deployments were launched simply “because GE did it”? And how many deployment were launched just like GE did it? I’m not knocking GE – quite the opposite. But for some other organization to simply mimic what GE did in an attempt to achieve the same results they did is the worst kind of Cargo Cult behavior. Still, it happens all the time, and is still happening to this day. And as detractors are fond of pointing out, the planes don’t land.
The power of this analogy arises for three reasons. First, the Cargo Cult story is fun and very easy to tell. Second, the link between Cargo Cults and Continuous Improvements deployments is easy to recognize. And third, there are so many botched deployments out there falling prey to the fallacy of Cargo Cult thinking that your audience will immediately start nodding their heads if you bring it up in conversation.
So, there you have it: the Cargo Cult analogy. Stifle a yawn if you’ve heard it too many times before, but try it out on your friends if you haven’t. It can be strecthed and pulled in a hundred directions to illuminate a hundred different points. Unfortunately, using it to talk about Six Sigma deployments doesn't require much stretching at all.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:01:00 -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: Return to Sender]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/return_to_sender.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
In 1660 King Charles 2nd officially established the General Post Office by act of parliament. In 1840 the first adhesive stamp, the penny black, was introduced. There's a fair degree more history I skipped because I want to talk about a recent innovation.
Pricing in Proportion was launched on the poor unsuspecting customer in 2006 . This changed postage prices from being based solely on weight to being based on weight and letter dimensions. Here is the gauge that is installed at post offices to determine the price band for your letter. If your letter is more than 5mm (0.2 inch) then it costs more.

It’s a long trip to the post office and its easy to make a mistake so I tend to put extra stamps on letters to be sure it will get to the destination. What an imaginative revenue opportunity.
But it’s the rework process that really jars with me. If a letter is sent with insufficient postage it’s the recipient who is asked to pay the additional postage plus an administration fee. If you don’t pay you don’t get your letter and you have no way of knowing what you’re paying for. I wouldn’t mind too much except this happens quite regularly with the most common cause being the kid’s birthday cards with badges on the front.
This change has introduced additional complexity and to get around this people like me are regularly over-paying to avoid the risk. So the question is, “what poka-yoke device would sort this out?”]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:35:18 -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: Hard Reality]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/hard_reality.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Adam Smith Institute has set June 2nd as UK Tax Freedom Day. This means we spend more than 5 months each year working for the government. How do we spend what’s left? Our gasoline is currently £1.23 per litre (that’s $9.15 a US gallon). If you avoid the car then our train prices are the highest in Europe. The cost of living is surging with increases coming in daily across the board. Set this against a falling housing market and a credit squeeze and people are stopping or delaying spending.
Accordingly business confidence has dropped dramatically. Unless you are in a hot, experiential market, e.g. iPhone, Indiana Jones or Wii, adapting to this challenging environment of lower growth, rising prices &amp; chasing revenue will mean an even greater focus on cash flow and controlling costs.
With high capital expenditure projects such as new IT systems unlikely to get sign-off, does this offer a great opportunity to really focus on customers, processes and removing the hidden waste? To do so immediately and relatively cheaply? To start banking benefits within weeks? To build into a full business transformation? 
As price starts to rank as the top criteria for buying decisions, so businesses will need to ensure they can reduce costs and maintain quality. Now must be the time to be ramping-up &amp; investing in the Lean Six Sigma technology.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 16:41:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Simplicity]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/simplicity.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was recently perusing Time magazines “Top 100” list for 2008, and came across this entry for Peter Pronovost. I had never heard of Pronovost. Here’s part of what profiler Kathleen Kingsbury had to say about him:

“A critical-care researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Pronovost may have saved more lives than any laboratory scientist in the past decade by relying on a wonderfully simple tool…”
I know what you’re are thinking, but no, Six Sigma is not the tool. Before I tell you what it is, consider that after implementing it in hospital ICUs in Michigan, hospital-acquired infections dropped from 2.7 per 1,000 patients to zero. That means more than 1,500 lives were saved in the first 18 months.
So what is this ingenious invention? What critical breakthrough occurred? What fancy bit of science and statistics produced these stupendous results? Which process improvement methodology was put to work? 
A checklist.
That’s right, Pronovost provided physicians with a list of steps as a reminding them how to complete routine procedures. 1500 lives were saved over 18 months in one state by writing down the steps for procedures, photocopying them, and handing them out. Pronovost estimates he could roll his system out across the entire US for three million dollars. Which, I think it’s worth noting, might be comparable to the annual budget for a corporate Six Sigma deployment in bigger companies.
One of the reasons I was so captivated by this story is that more and more, I find myself returning to the basics and fundamentals of process improvement methodology. I read the primary literature and wonder at the complexity of current process improvement methodology. I wonder where the power of elegance of simplicity has gone.
For example, one of my favorite books is Kaoru Ishikawa’s “Guide to Quality Control”. It’s long out of print, but you can still pick up used copies online and elsewhere. You might not know Ishikawa by name, but if you’ve ever done a fishbone diagram, you know his work. He introduced his now-eponymous diagram along with six other quality tools in the Guide. Each was elegant and simple. Things like check sheets, Pareto charts, scatter plots, basic control charts - simple tools explained concisely. It’s a slim volume, but everything is there. Every time I read it, I wonder to myself how on earth we’ve allowed the continuous improvement world to become so complex and unapproachable. I’m at a loss to explain what value Six Sigma and similar methodologies add to Ishikawa’s approach. Sure, they provide the sizzle that sells programs to organizations, but it’s quite possible that that’s all they do. Which is worrisome.
Ishikawa and Pronovost have proven that very clear and simple approaches can yield stunning results. Much as Deming and others did before them. Modern Six Sigma is anything but simple. Most Black Belts take four week to train. But I can get through Ishikawa on a flight from Chicago to Denver, and I’m guessing Pronovost can train his folks in about five minutes.
Have we taken a wrong turn?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Picking Fruit the Six Sigma Way]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/picking_fruit_the_six_sigma_way.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Any seasoned Lean Six Sigma professional can tell you about the fruit tree of quality.  At the bottom of the tree there is fruit festering on the ground which represents “just do it” kaizen and bare bones problem solving. As you move up the tree, you can begin to pick the low hanging fruit by utilising Lean tools with a sprinkling of Six Sigma. The middle of the tree signifies Six Sigma in its unadulterated form- this is where you break out the statistics and you can reap big savings as a result. Lastly, fruit residing in the top echelon of the tree can only be picked via robust design (i.e. Design for Six Sigma). 
Many of you (including myself) were involved in Six Sigma deployments that began nearly a decade ago.  In my case, the tree was there but the expectation was to use Six Sigma to harvest all of the fruit, with little regard to Lean or other quality methodologies.  Because there was so much fruit, Black Belts had high expectations for cumulative project values and in some instances projects could be completed within a matter of weeks.
In my case after about five years of utilizing Six Sigma, solutions had been implemented for many major problems and some within the organization were questioning the validity of continuing Black Belt roles on a full time basis. Robust projects utilizing trials and Design for Six Sigma work tended to take longer than the average Six Sigma project. Value for work was moving from black and white hard dollar savings to a more abstract value. 
Does any of this sound familiar to you? One of the key concerns for a mature Six Sigma organization is the point where it feels it is squeezing a lemon that’s out of juice.  If you feel this scenario applies to you, I’d like to recommend the following advice.

Complacency is not an option. The processes you have now, no matter the sigma level, will unlikely be considered competitive ten years from now (and this applies to everything from software system design to manufacturing processes). When you pick fruit, it can grow back and when this occurs, it is never quite identical to its predecessor. Most things change over time and with that mindset, Six Sigma can take a proactive (and not reactive) approach to problem solving. 
You don’t always have to pick the tree in an upward motion. Sure, it’s great to be a Black Belt who can claim a million dollar savings on a single project, however the more mature an organization is utilizing Six Sigma, the more elusive this type of fruit becomes.  Yes, you may still be able to find value, however you may have to look down the tree. This is especially true in organizations where Six Sigma was implemented prior to Lean Manufacturing. Rather than picking a single, large piece of fruit, you may need to pick several smaller ones to equal the rewards.  The projects can be grouped in a cluster around a common problem. You may also need to expand the traditional Six Sigma project team to include additional improvement practitioners from Lean and other disciplines such as capital.
Establish a cost pool to draw from. One of the tasks when defining a Six Sigma project is to estimate a financial value to justify the project. The ripest fruit in the middle of the tree is generally linked to hard value such as added production, reduction in headcount, etc. and can very easily be calculated.  Move in either direction and the value of the fruit becomes more abstract.  I have seen some corporations where these projects can be worked with a “soft savings” undertone, meaning there is an inherent value that is understood to be good for the business but may be difficult to quantify. However, if you work for a company that must show a financial impact to the bottom line, my recommendation is to establish a Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) or Cost of Non Conformance (CONC) metric. These metrics can be individual for department or a single value for the entire site.  Rather than focusing on how much a single project will achieve in value, the metric value can be tracked on a monthly basis to compare performance with the prior year’s costs.  For example, while working a project to reduce staff turnover may be difficult to financially validate (especially in a short timeframe), the work can feed into reducing COPQ costs for Human Resources which may include things such as relocation expense for new employees, costs for processing exit interviews, etc.
As I noted earlier, when you pick fruit off a tree, it can grow back. It may grow in a different location or may be slightly different in appearance, however it doesn’t necessarily mean prior Six Sigma work was unsuccessful. As a Six Sigma practitioner, your role is to continue picking the fruit. This may mean searching both up and down the tree. You may need to get others to help you collect it and you may also need to utilise additional tools for harvesting. You may even need to incorporate a new method to store its value. Just remember- as long as there is fruit on the tree of quality, there will always be a need for Six Sigma within organizations.

 
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 18:18:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Innovation and Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/innovation_and_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There has been a lot of ink spilled lately dithering about Six Sigma and Innovation. Most of it by naysayers who feel that Six Sigma is antithetical to Innovation, or zealots who feel some version of the opposite sentiment. For the life of me, I can’t wrap my mind around either position.
To illustrate my view, let’s talk about some other processes you find in most organizations – perhaps budgeting and talent development. Most businesses have at least an annual budgeting process and an annual talent development process. These are fundamental, and exist in most places out of necessity. Clearly the two have links: it takes money to develop and retain talent, and it takes high caliber people to manage all aspects of cashflow and propel the organization forward. Without good talent development there would eventually be no budget to allocate, and without good budgeting all the talent in the world isn’t going to matter after a couple of quarters.
So talent development and budgeting are both necessary for the success of the organization, but neither is sufficient. Hardly an interesting observation, right? Now suppose someone told you that “your budget process is killing your talent development process.” Well, it could be true, and if so you’d have to fix it. But suppose they went on to say that “talent development is much more important, so you should get rid of the budget process.” That’s ridiculous, right? The very idea makes no sense.
But that’s exactly the argument that is made regarding Six Sigma and Innovation. If I had a nickel for every article I’ve read concluding that Six Sigma kills Innovation so we should jettison Six Sigma, well, I’d probably have about a dollar. But you get my point.
There are two things wrong with this conclusion, regardless of how it is reached. The first one is described above. Six Sigma and Innovation are two separate but related processes that must co-exist in a healthy organization. Both are necessary and neither is sufficient for success. Suggesting that one should be pursued to the exclusion of the other is infantile thinking. I don’t care what you call the attendant programs, but new ideas need to be encouraged and developed, and continuous improvement needs to occur. Of course, Six Sigma can’t be the Innovation program either. Organizations that lack an Innovation program and try to make Six Sigma stand in for it are bound to be disappointed. If you have no talent development process, having a great budget process isn’t going to help.
So the first thing wrong with the conclusion that Six Sigma kills Innovation is that it suggests an opposition between the two processes, falsely implying a choice that isn’t there. You don’t get to choose one or the other. Both are necessary. The trick is to make them work together, just like budgeting and talent acquisition.
The second thing wrong with the conclusion is that, properly structured, Six Sigma and Innovation have an intrinsically synergistic relationship, not an antagonistic one. Just like budgeting and talent development do when properly executed. Despite what you may have read, process and structure are not natural enemies of Innovation.  Bad process and inappropriate structure…maybe those are enemies of Innovation, but then they are the enemy of many other things in the organization too. A bad Innovation program will certainly be a drag on your Continuous Improvement program, and vice versa. But as I have pointed out many times before, the conclusion that poorly run programs perform poorly is not useful or interesting.
It has been my experience that well-run Six Sigma programs generate a tidal wave of new insights and ideas. Indeed, managing the flow of those ideas becomes a central, consuming, happy problem for successful programs. This is true even when a very structured approach is taken. I’m reminded of a story I was once told about an author who decided to write an entire novel without using the letter “e”. You’d think this would be incredibly limiting, but in fact the author ended up learning many, many new words and taking his writing in entirely new directions. The structure forced him to break old habits and think in new ways.
A recent New York Times article by Janet Rae-Dupree makes this point in fascinating depth. Here’s a tease:

“So it seems antithetical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks.”
Far from killing it, a well-deployed Six Sigma program (or any structured approach to continuous improvement) can be a great partner to Innovation. The reverse point is also true, that Innovation can help Six Sigma. I’m not going to construct an argument to support my belief that Innovation is a necessary component of Continuous Improvement, as I take it to be true almost by definition.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma - IAGTM]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_iagtm.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently got a text message from my son.   "Mom . . . Pick me up ATEOTD."   Unable to decipher the text message abbreviation I’m forced to do what any mom what do . . text back . . . What?    "At The End Of The Day" comes the reply with a big UGH!  It’s like a foreign language.  I’m sure the kids are doing it to drive me mad.  But then, maybe it’s just their new language.  
I started thinking about how the whole text abbreviation thing is sort of like what Six Sigma must sound like to those who have not had the chance to participate in training.  "After identifying the CTs and completing a SIPOC, you should start on your FMEA".   I can see how that might sound like gobble-de-gook to an untrained ear.   
When we use Six Sigma tools and methods on a daily basis, it’s easy to get so wrapped up in our own world that we forget that everyone may not be as proficient in the new vocabulary as we are.  I’m trying to keep this in mind when I address a group of people who are new to Six Sigma and have started saying "high level process map" instead of SIPOC and "risk analysis" instead of FMEA.  I think people appreciate the effort.  Over time, the Six Sigma jargon will become second nature.  Until then, you will probably hear them say "Six Sigma. . . IAGTM."]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 16:26:56 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Consultant Within]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_consultant_within.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The state of the US economy notwithstanding, retention of talent is a major issue across many organizations these days. Operational Excellence, Six Sigma, and related disciplines are no exception, with a lot of the mobility fueled by the same high standards for training and certification that are intended to attract folks in the first place.
Indeed, that sucking sound you hear just might be the vacuum created as Black Belts bolt one manufacturing company for another. Or perhaps they’re leaving for jobs in healthcare and finance, both of which seem to be consuming experienced practitioners at an alarming rate. And if you are in China or other similarly hot economies, that sucking sound is probably closer to the wail of a hurricane, as the best talent ricochets from employer to employer with all the subtlety of a midnight freight train.
For the organization suffering defections, there are many downsides to this churn. Consistency is hard to maintain. Standards are hard to enforce. Long-term projects and initiatives are hard to complete. Relationships suffer. Departments break down. And organization memory shrinks to a pinprick.
Priority number one in this environment is, of course, to hold on to your talent. I won’t go into that lengthy topic (others could probably do it more justice anyway), nor will I tarry for an admittedly interesting discussion about why a lot of technical folks feel the need to hop employers to get ahead  in their careers (although I do think that is a fascinating phenomenon).
Instead I want to talk about the flip-side of the phenomenon, and why it can actually be a good thing for an organization. Even the best organizations lose people sometimes, and those people are generally replaced with people from other good organizations. So there is a constant stream of people and knowledge going back and forth. All of which means that, big or small, you probably have a lot of “outside” knowledge resident in your organization. This is old news, and I’m hardly the first one to point it out. But I think its especially true of continuous improvement professionals, and in my experience there isn’t a whole lot being done about it.
This is in part due to a love affair with outside consultants. Many of us were initially trained by outside consultants, and out first instinct in new situations is to look towards them. This is a familiar mode for all involved, but is very expensive and results tend to be mixed at best. What if there was a way to get exactly the same benefits with virtually no cost and very little risk? With as much cross-fertilization as there is going on between companies these days, the best consultants are probably already colleagues just waiting to be consulted. That’s always been the case, but it is exacerbated as the flow of talent is becomes ever more fast, furious, and global.
Like I said, this is hardly an original thought. But even so, I see a lot of consultants engaged for jobs that could very well be done just as well by internal employees. The missing link is a high degree of communication and organization, especially across geography and business functions. For example, if a large company needs 5S help in a plant in Chicago, it is very easy to go out and hire a consultant. But if the company is large enough, there’s probably a distribution center in Warsaw that has already been through a 5S journey and has plenty of expertise and experience to share. The trouble is that the folks in Chicago almost never know about the people in Warsaw. And even if that connection is made, doing something about can look pretty daunting. Getting the domestic consultant in is a lot easier. It may cost more, but it is the kind of cost that the organization is used to paying. 
All of which means that in an environment where talent and experience are migrating both in and out of the organization – like they are right now in Six Sigma and related areas – having the infrastructure and processes in place to identify and leverage expertise globally is at least as important as any other task a deployment executive has. You’ve got people coming in with new skills and experience all the time, and you need to be learning from them and leveraging what they know. You can be victim to the sucking sound, or you can profit from it. Setting up to do that looks and feel a lot different than a traditional deployment, but we’re no longer living in a world where big companies don’t have Black Belts or Continuous Improvement specialists. The question isn’t whether you have them, it’s what you know about them and what are you doing with them.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: More Henry Ford]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/more_henry_ford.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My Lean Thinking colleagues in Maine State Government have also been looking for quotes in Henry Fords writing that would speak to our movement toward more efficient and productive work as individuals, companies and communities.  The one that was chosen for their monthly news letter speaks to the people side of lean. It speaks of the major cause of resistance and poor function in human beings participating in the transformational change that lean process analysis can bring.  When I read this month news letter there it was staring at me.
 

 
“ I pity the poor fellow who is so soft and flabby that he must always have "an atmosphere of good feeling" around him before he can do his work. There are such men. And in the end, unless they obtain enough mental and moral hardiness to lift them out of their soft reliance on "feeling," they are failures”. [i]  
 
 

Whew. Sounds a little strong for todays human resource function. But when you can get past the fatherly toughness you can see that Henry is absolutely right.  Like most self respecting professional continuous improvement professionals, before I looked at all the “other” flabby people in my work environment (clients and professional colleagues) I took a glance at myself.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not into self destruction, but I was raised with the belief that you should look for the log in your own eye before seeking the splinter in another’s eye.  How flabby am I either physically or emotionally?  Honest self assessment?  That is a very difficult thing for many of us to do.  We get very good at measuring process, cycle time, machine tool tolerances and others performance.  But how good are we at looking at self?  I have discovered when I am able to self assess my own production flaws I am much more able to objectively review others. 

 
So I when I worked out last night I worked extra hard and vowed to move towards strength and away from flabby.  Strengthing body and mind through exercise and related activities is one strategy to improve this function.  

 
Another strategy is to examine the response we have when our feelings arise as we are trying to compete our daily tasks. There is a great list of short sayings called  Constructive Living Maxims [ii] which can help each of us get past our feeling and back to what needs being done.  Keep these handy when you start to feel like not working, they may be the thought that puts you back on task.

 
A third strategy for overcoming the power of feelings is good planning. If you do not have a map or plan, feelings can easily become the driving source of decisions.  Then you are in big trouble. When you do not have a plan, you are planning to fail.  What planning tool to you use? There are some six sigma planning tools that can be used.  I know of another.  I recently began working with some old process friends who have developed a planning tool for students and communities.  We used it almost 10 years ago when I chaired our community’s comprehensive plan committee.  The tool is called Running Start .  I am working with them to adapt this tool for disabled adults participating in the voc rehab process and returning veterans who are integrating back into the community. This personal planning process facilitates the development of a plan, gives quantitative feedback regarding the progress being made and keeps you on track so feelings do not dominate decisions and you work the plan which has been developed. It might be a good process to use to reach the decision that you need a Value Stream Map to identify your prime contraint or waste and other process innefficiencies, although the tool alone will help identify those things as well.
 


How does all this relate to Six Sigma?  Seems flabby is much like muda and causes significant reduction in our physical and emotional efficiency. How big is your log? Mine is shrinking, I hope.
 

Bye the way, Michael thanks for the new BB LSS certification process you mentioned in your recent column on April 4, 2008. I now have a certificate on my wall too!  Just like the strawman in the Wizard of Oz. How transformational!




[i] Ford, Henry – My Life and Work, The Project Gutenberg: Release Date: January, 2005-EBook #7213, Produced by Marvin Hodges, Tom Allen, Eric Eldred, Charles Franks and the DP Team
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/7213
 

[ii]  Reynolds, David – Constructive Living Maxims – For more about David Reynolds see http://boat.zero.ad.jp/~zbe85163/
. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:52:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Systems Thinking and Scope Creep]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/systems_thinking_and_scope_creep.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Project scope issues are probably one of the top failure modes for LSS projects. If the scope is too narrow, leadership doesn’t view the effort as important and doesn’t support it. Too broad, and the improvements are either never implemented, or aren’t sustained due to poor implementation and control. 
 
 
Often out of necessity, projects are chartered and scoped with imperfect data and understanding of the problem. (After all, if the solution was known, launching a project would be unnecessary). By design, DMAIC leads the team through a discovery process that can affect the scope or drive the effort in a new direction entirely. 
 
 
Systems thinking, on the other hand, challenges us to understand the interconnectedness of all things. Such thinking also shows that seemingly discrete processes usually begin and end beyond the defined scope of a LSS project, beyond the boundaries of the department, or even the organization. Firms like Toyota, Rathyeon, Pratt Whitney and others get this – they work with their customers, suppliers, their suppliers suppliers, and so on to achieve more process stability, efficiency, and quality of inputs and outputs. 
 
 
On many projects, particularly early on in a deployment, it’s not long before the project team starts to see opportunities everywhere - problems their department causes for others, problems they deal with caused by others. Things can quickly snowball until a well- scoped green belt project turns into solving global warming. Then there’s the individual that tries to bolt on their particular hobby horse issue to another project, often only peripherally affecting the problem at hand. 
 
 
It takes discipline on the part of the champion, the project leader, and the process owner to maintain the scope of an improvement effort, and stay realistic about what can be accomplished within the timeframe and resource availability of a green belt project.
 
 
So how do you, LSS practitioners, balance the need to manage scope creep, while keeping attuned to the broader context in which the projects are taking place? Please reply using the comments section.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[James Considine]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Facilitating Success]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/facilitating_success.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
 
 
 
 
 
 
What could be tougher than binary logistic regression?  How about facilitating a team?  Team inputs vary in type, personality, knowledge level, background, etc., but the choice for team output is pretty discrete - success or not.
So what does a good facilitator look like?   Here’s what Wikipedia says:

"An individual who enables groups and organizations to work more effectively, to collaborate and achieve synergy"
"One who contributes structure and process to interactions so groups are able to function effectively and make high-quality decisions"
"The facilitator’s job is to support everyone to do their best thinking.   To do this, the facilitator encourages full participation, promotes mutual understanding and cultivates shared responsibility"
For some belts, being a good facilitator may come naturally.  Others may need training and practice to sharpen their skills.  In either case, one thing is for sure - don’t underestimate the need or value of this key skill.  It could make a big difference in whether the team finds success . . . or not.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:31:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: New Kid on the Block]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/new_kid_on_the_block.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Now I have achieved my ASQ Black Belt certification and with my brain still packed full of Lean Six Sigma information, I thought I would see if I could collect some more badges. So it’s a big “Lean Six Sigma Certification” welcome to the British Standards Institute (BSI). 
My experience with BSI goes way back to my very first job as a polymer engineer and developing industrial ‘O’ rings to quality standard BS 5750 (I found the company still exists – James Walker).
Things moved on from BS 5750 and it became ISO 9000 and the ISO 9001:2000 kitemark is an international quality standard adopted by over 500,000 companies across 149 countries. 
They seem a little late to market, but I think the brand and its values will bring a lot to developing our profession and giving confidence to our customers.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:48:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Total Innovation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/total_innovation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In our business we are passionate about achieving breakthrough innovations and I’d like to share a few examples of how we really push the envelope. Lets start with the fire alarm. It’s seldom used for real but reaches right across the whole campus with a very clear message:

“Emergency, please leave the building by the nearest exit.” 
We tapped into this paradigm to alert our numerous project managers to consistently achieve the weekly status report deadline with a very clear message to instruct people wherever they are:

“Emergency, all project managers submit their status report immediately.” 
Imagine the employee delight we achieved with this regular reminder, a simple but really effective change.
Or how about the “Six Sigma Results Tree” we erected in head-office? Our black belts come and randomly pick a low-hanging fruit (project opportunity) and return when complete with a green-paper leaf for each £100k saved. It goes to prove that money does grow on trees.
What about group dynamics in meetings? We reviewed the Six Thinking Hats methodology and didn’t really understand it. So what did we do? We innovated of course! We took the Six Thinking Hats’ one-dimensional concept (e.g. creativity, optimism &amp; judgement) to the next dimension and applied the Roger Hargreaves’ management methodology. We found the Hargreaves - Mr Men approach provided a much richer set of one-dimensional characters as shown: 

We started strongly with clear insights from Mr Clever and outstanding levels of quality from Mr Perfect. Things started to wobble when we found Mr Quiet hiding in the cupboard and Mr Lazy would never show up for meetings. But we had to call a halt when Mr Tickle took his role too passionately and Little Miss Sunshine made a formal HR complaint! But we did enjoy seeing them run around and around the meeting table, “Here comes Mr Tickle……Tickle Tickle Tickle”.
I could share other groundbreaking innovations but I need maintain confidentiality to retain our truly competitive edge!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:37:34 -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: Revisiting Henry Ford]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/revisiting_henry_ford.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been re-reading Henry Fords book “My Life and Work”. I got the idea to re-read this from Walter Lowell, the Lean Initiative Director at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. It is available as an e-book from The Project Gutenberg.(see below)
In this wonderful book Ford talks about how he developed the horseless carriage. In terms of efficiency and lean use of energy, this was one of the first innovative engineering ideas that contributed to the industrialization of America. We all know the story and how it developed including Henry’s idea of interchangeable parts and, I would argue, one of the first Value Stream Mapping demonstrations of the lean use of people using the manufacturing production line. This led me to thinking about our current manufacturing dilemma in America and how my professional training in job analysis and vocational rehabilitation could begin to create some solutions for our manufacturing industry in America. More importantly my client base everyday is growing with 50 something men and women who only know how to use their hands to make stuff.  They find themselves unemployed or underemployed and worn out from $8.00 dollar an hour service jobs and in dire need of some real work and a livable wage. They have worked in construction and manufacturing and now can’t find anything reasonable to do. 
All political rhetoric aside it is a real problem for many American citizens both disabled and able bodied. How can lean thinking utilized by our government and manufacturing sector begin to solve this problem. What would Henry do?
As I read Henry’s book I looked for inspiration to combine all this evolving knowledge I have recently gained with the problem of our shrinking industrial base and my charge to help individuals with disabilities and related barriers find and maintain gainful employment in an integrated and competitive employment environment. This was the first quote I decided to build upon.
“The Government is a servant and never should be anything but a servant. The moment the people become adjuncts to government, then the law of retribution begins to work, for such a relation is unnatural, and inhuman”. 
I guess that means that if the government is creating useless jobs that do not grow the economy then in the end an unproductive dependency is created. But workforce development programs going back to the Conservation Corp have contributed to our economic development in this country including the development of the interstate system and many other infrastructure projects that support and sustain businesses in our country. 
Lean government proponents would do well to combine value stream mapping and other LSS tools with workforce development programming and provide a boost to our manufacturing sector. What an idea… use Henry’s Fords evolved manufacturing ideas combined with job analysis and employability development models and put our citizens back to work making stuff. What stuff? Stuff that comes from natural resources found in America. This is not entitlement but rather building on our historical strengths. 
Lean thinking is a transformational concept that must remain part of our entrepreneurial and public sector strategic planning. Where’s the muda?
Reference. Ford, Henry – My Life and Work, The Project Gutenberg: Release Date: January, 2005 [EBook #7213] Produced by Marvin Hodges, Tom Allen, Tonya Allen, Eric Eldred, Charles Franks, and the DP Team The Gutenberg Project]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:05:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A System Beyond Their Control]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_system_beyond_their_control.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Deming proposed his famous “Red Bed” experiment more than half a century ago. These days, videos and descriptions circulate freely via the web, and there are many books and other publications that describe the experiment. But even for those who are familiar with its lessons, the applicability of the experiment and what it teaches are as striking today as they must have been the first time it was run.
If you aren’t familiar with the Red Bead experiment, there’s a pretty good overview here. Briefly, the Red Bead experiment can be summarized like this...
Workers are asked to “produce” red beads by dipping a dimpled paddle into a large container full of beads. Management has set up “the system” such that the container is filled with a mixture of mostly red beads, but also a small fraction of white beads. Thus, when workers pull out their paddle, they inevitably pull out some white beads along with the red ones. Regardless of how workers try (and if you’ve ever done this experiment live, you’ll know that they do try), their paddles always pick up some white beads. In fact, the red bead experiment is set up such that there is very little that can be done by the worker to influence the results. The point, to paraphrase Deming, is that all workers perform within a system that is beyond their control.
Beyond that fundamental message, there are many, many things to be learned from the Red Bead experiment. Deming, for example, famously tracked the performance of various paddles over time, noting that even paddles that were “the same” regressed to different averages and standard deviations over time. Thus different workers in the same system who are ranked according to the defects they produce are being ranked on random differences attributable to the system, rather than on their own individual performance. This is just one example - Deming and others have taken the basic lessons of the Red Bead experiment in scores of directions to illuminate all sorts of lessons.
In my experience, the most common reaction to seeing, playing, or reading about the Red Bead experiment is this: so what – isn’t that obvious? And it is, of course. The genius of Deming’s set up is that it is completely, blindingly obvious what will happen. The genius is that is strips away all the smoke and mirrors of real life situations and makes the conclusions obvious. But even so, the lessons of Red Bead still haven’t sunk into general consciousness. Even for those of us who study it and ruminate on it, the lessons are easy to forget and hard to implement. This must be the case, because the experiment keeps repeating itself over and over again in real life, and we keep trying to blame the workers for the failings of the system.
Consider the recent foibles of trader Jérôme Kerviel and French bank Société Générale, described here in an account by the New York Times.
SocGen and Kerviel’s story has been smothered n coverage – a $7 billion USD loss will do that – and virtually all of the articles (including the one cited above) describe Kerviel as a “rogue trader”. In fact, a Google search combing the terms “Kerviel” and “rogue trader” turns up no less than 700-800 results.
But was Kerviel’s behavior really “rogue”, as in aberrant, different, or going against the usual behavior at SocGen? To be perfectly honest, I don’t have any sort of informed opinion of the answer to that question. I’m not well versed in the general area, and I had never heard of Société Générale before this story broke. But I do have a hunch. I can tell you that all the accounts and interviews I have read, including comments by other employees, indicate that the far from being rogue, Kerviel’s behavior and practices were encouraged and expected. My reading is that he was a classic manifestation of a system carefully crafted and maintained over time by SocGen. All of which makes the a classic case of the Red Bead experiment.
Let me be clear that this hypothesis did not require and special cleverness on my part. In fact, the New York Times article makes the same point:

While management depicts the 31-year-old Mr. Kerviel as a lone operator who spiraled out of control, interviews with current and former Société Générale employees suggest that he was also the product of an environment where risk taking was embraced, as long as it made money for the bank.
To put it in Red Bead terms, Kerviel was doing nothing more than sticking his paddle into the container and pulling it out. For a long time, he had seen a normal number of white beads come out. One day early this year, he stuck in his paddle like he had been taught to do (heavily rewarded for doing, in fact) and got a few more white beads than normal. Random variation is like that. But for Kerviel on this day, voila, he became an instant pariah. SocGen built the container, added the red and white beads, designed the paddles, and taught Kerviel how to put his in and draw it out. Kerviel what he was expected to do. In December he was up $2 billion. In January he was down $7 billion. Like I said, random variation is like that. So who should be made the pariah?
If you don’t like Red Bead, you can think of it in control chart terms. Standard six sigma control limits mean that normal variation will fall within the control limits 99.99967% of the time, right? Which means that one out of every 300,000 will fall out of the control limits with no attributable cause. Now, are there 300,000 folks like Kerviel out there? Or maybe 3000 who perform strings of trades 100 times in a year? If there is, then sooner or later one of them is going have results that fall outside the limits, just like Kerviel did. If that happens to go in the right direction, they get a huge bonus (like Kerviel probably did in years past). If it goes in the wrong direction, they get to be the subject of an uncomfortable article in the New York Times. Even though it is all normal variation, even though it is all the Red Bead experiment, playing itself out again and again.
Now, I certainly don’t mean to absolve Kerviel of guilt. What he did was clearly wrong; it threw up a number of warning flags and violated all sorts of rules. But it can’t be called unexpected in any way. It was a logical output of the system that SocGen built. Punishing Kerviel isn’t going to do a thing about that. Red Bead.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;History]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: ASQ CSSBB]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/asq_cssbb.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In January I looked through the ASQ body of knowledge (BoK) for Black Belt and said to myself, “I know most of this stuff now”. So put in my entry and passed the Mar’08 exam. I thought I would share the experience, as I believe a number of practitioners may have looked at the ASQ exam. Get a good foundationI reviewed the ASQ exam a couple of years ago and concluded I did not have the experience to guarantee a pass. So waited until I had delivered the projects, trained the Black Belts and invested my spare time in learning the tools. After all this I decided I had the right foundations in place. ASQ recommend three-years work experience and that seems about right.
Find what you don’t knowReading through the BoK and doing the sample exam I identified clear areas of weakness. Coming from a Transactional background, there were manufacturing areas I had never covered in particular around Measurement Systems and Design of Experiments.
Invest the time in preparationI went through every section of the BoK. Be ready for set-piece questions that require calculating from equations, things like confidence intervals and probability. If you are used to having Minitab do the work, practice doing the equations. I invested in the QCI Exam CD and although I found some of the questions infuriatingly ambiguous it does help.
On the dayThe exam is open book and covers 150 questions over 4 hours so it’s a bit of a slog. I found my collection of books &amp; materials were good enough and included Six Sigma, Lean, DFSS, Statistics and quick-reference books. I found I needed to refer to all of these during the exam.
Next StepsI found the brief review of the industry greats, Deming, Juran, Ohno &amp;Taguchi whet my appetite and am keen to learn more. Now I have covered the BoK I am ready to move on and am looking now at understanding the big-picture stuff like strategy planning, target operating model and other related areas
Good luck if you are planning to gain ASQ, let me know if any questions.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:46:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Right First Time, Every Time!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/right_first_time_every_time.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Imagine a world in which we routinely do things Right First Time, Every Time. There would be no more rework as first time yield is 100% and no need to coach &amp; mentor as green &amp; black belts hit the ground running. Unfortunately it tends to be the case that in order to be Right First Time you need to Get It Wrong Lots of Times First. It’s just a people-thing, they learn from their mistakes.
But that’s where Six Sigma comes into play. Why bother getting improvements wrong when you can accurately define the key output as a function of the key inputs (DMAIC) or design new processes clearly linked to customer needs (DFSS)?
Now I have done numerous projects that require detailed technical analysis and lots of problem solving tools to get the root-cause. Extensive re-engineering follows with major IT changes. So it was nice to have a project that presented as essentially poor end-to-end process management. I have been looking forward to doing Kaizen for some time and must say it works. 
The change in style is important in order to get the people involved and engaged in owning and delivering improvements to their own processes. It’s all about looking to embed the idea that they own the continual improvement of their process rather than having a project come and “Do It” to them. It’s all about getting them into the habit of wanting to improve rather than trying to get it Right First Time. 
I guess it defines the difference between process improvement – highly targeted projects and continual improvement – people repeatedly improving their process?
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:00:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: iSixSigma Salary Survey Webcast Recording -- Coming Soon]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/isixsigma_salary_survey_webcast_recording_coming_soon.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I’ve received a decent number of emails and calls from people who wanted to see our premiere webcast, but couldn’t attend for one reason or another. Rest assured, we will be releasing a recorded version of the webcast soon. We’re still finalizing the recording, landing page, etc. Stay tuned to the iSixSigma Blogosphere for an update.
(By the way, we topped out at more than 1,000 registrants for our first-ever webcast! Everyone that registered -- thanks for making the premiere iSixSigma webcast a blockbuster.)]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:45:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Joseph M. Juran 1904-2008]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/joseph_m_juran_1904_2008.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Many of you have recently heard about the tremendous loss to the Quality profession. There is a press release from Juran Institute and a forum discussion.
I had an email forwarded to me from the leaders of the Joseph M. Juran Center for Leadership in Quality. Below is the email:



 
 February 29, 2008   Dear Friends:   It is with great sadness that we learned today that Dr. Joseph M. Juran passed away on February 28, 2008, of natural causes. He was 103 years old and was physically and mentally active until his death.   The Juran family has decided at this time not to conduct a service. The Juran Institute will prepare to hold a service for Dr. Juran in conjunction with the annual ASQ Congress in the spring.   During the past century, Joseph M. Juran put forth a vision for a world made better through a commitment to quality. The Joseph M. Juran Center for Leadership in Quality owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Juran for his role and support in developing the academic foundation needed for his vision. In 1998, Dr. Juran transferred the Juran Foundation and its assets to the University of Minnesota. With this additional support and recognition, the University of Minnesota’s Quality Leadership Center—renamed the Joseph M. Juran Center—has served as a resource to leaders, scholars and students of quality. Most significantly, Dr. Juran’s support allowed the Center to create a fellowship program for doctoral students conducting research in quality. Over the last 10 years, the Center has named nearly 50 Juran Fellows who represent a dozen leading research universities and many fields and disciplines.   In addition to the foundation, Dr. Juran also transferred his professional memorabilia and papers to the University of Minnesota. The memorabilia includes more than 100 framed plaques, trophies and medals, including the Order of the Sacred Treasure, which was conferred upon Dr. Juran in 1981 by the Emperor of Japan for Dr. Juran’s development of quality control in Japan and the facilitation of friendship between the United States and Japan.   In Dr. Juran’s autobiography, The Architect of Quality, he says that the Center has undertaken an ambitious initiative “to stimulate formation of a national movement toward leadership in quality.” In Dr. Juran’s memory, we need to recommit ourselves with renewed vigor for all of the things he valued and worked so hard for all of his life.   Sincerely,   Kingshuk K. Sinha Carlson Family Foundation Professor Director, Joseph M. Juran Center for Leadership in Quality   Jim Buckman Executive Director Joseph M. Juran Center for Leadership in Quality]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;History]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:28:38 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Branded!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/branded.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Oh no - not a label!   Too bad.  Whether you like it or not, you are being labeled - or branded - every day.   Regardless of whether your company brands themselves and markets this brand or does nothing, your customers have already put a brand on you.   Think about it.  What comes to mind when you think about Lexus, WalMart, or Bank of America?   Sometimes it’s the commercials but most likely that image will get trumped by your experience as a customer.  
So what does all this have to do with Six Sigma?  Everything.  Six Sigma provides the tools, methods and approach to boost your brand.  If you want to be known for excellent customer service  . . . Six Sigma can help.  If you want to be known for low cost . . . Six Sigma can help.  If you want to be known for reliability  . . Six Sigma can help.  Establishing the brand you desire will require excellence in execution - first time - every time.  And keeping pace with constantly rising customer demands will require continuously improving your product or service.  Can’t keep up?  You’ll still get branded and your customers won’t mind letting you know about it.  
So next time you are looking to boost your brand, don’t just look to advertising and marketing.  Look to Six Sigma to make the lasting difference in your product or service and let your positive customer experience boost your brand.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:03:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Reflection: A hotel worker &amp; a customer]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/reflection_a_hotel_worker_amp_a_customer.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
It’s been awhile since my last blog posting... much time was spent managing my home renovation project. It’s now completed, I can sit down and ‘do my things’. I started blogging (my own blogsite) Six Sigma in April 2007 with the intention of staying in touch with the subject matter and also to learn certain web-technologies (I’m halfway through a Dreamweaver training guide still). Along the way I found the iSix Sigma Blogosphere website- and eventually getting accepted in Blogosphere provided a ‘higher’ avenue for my thoughts on Six Sigma. Yes- ‘rubbing shoulders’ amongst the expressive best elevated my writing style and Six Sigma knowledge.
I joined a Starwood resort in late 2002 as a finance manager; 3 months later I was asked to sit for 3 three-hour psychometric test that would eventually rate me as being creative, unorthodox, having that Six Sigma ‘mind’, etc, etc, which gave the green light to Green Belt training. After 4 years and kicking off Six Sigma in 2 other hotels (believe it or not- as Financial Controller/ GB) I left the hotel industry to pursue something else very different- manage the Financial Management of a huge IT department of a bank while implementing shared-services initiatives using the ITSM practice. 
Is there life after Six Sigma? Yes, there is. I left a Six Sigma job but never really did leave Six Sigma. All that Starwood Six Sigma training left me with a ‘heightened’ sense for processes (but it’s not that having an inquisitive mind did not get me in trouble with my superiors in a ‘traditional’ environment!) I think in process maps and decision boxes, for instance. I never really left the hotel scene either- my wife and I dine regularly in Starwood and its competitors’ hotels giving me a 360-degree experience in the hotel industry- as worker previously and now as customer. 
Well, here’s to a great hotel company!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Vincent Chin]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:03:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Banking on Risk]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/banking_on_risk.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Reacting to the last several months of turmoil in the capital markets, I want to discuss an area where Lean Six Sigma professionals who work in banking and financial services should focus their attention, acquire new skills, and start having an impact – enterprise risk.
A couple of years ago, one of my former colleagues investigated the contribution of Lean Six Sigma to shareholder value at a small group of well-known banks.  He researched public statements by these companies to quantify their self-attributed savings.  He then developed a crude expected shareholder value multiplier based on price-to-earnings ratio.  Multiplying self-attributed savings, which he assumed flow to the bottom line, by the shareholder value multiplier led my former colleague to conclude that Lean and Six Sigma created at least $4-6 billion in shareholder value for these banks.
Conventional wisdom leads me to believe that recent turmoil in the credit markets wiped out these gains.  The stock prices of many investment banks, asset managers, commercial banks, mortgage finance companies, monolines, and other major participants in structured finance are trading new two-year lows.  While each firm and industry segment has its own unique issues, weak risk management is a common storyline.
Looking ahead to the trends for 2008 and 2009, strengthening risk management practices is an imperative and a mammoth challenge for banking and financial services companies and their executives.  The global interconnectedness, complexity and volatility of capital markets necessitate a holistic, innovative approach.  Conventional practices do not stand up to the challenges in 2008 and beyond.
Exogenous Pressure
Curing the current ills will depend on fortifying balance sheets, and regulatory intervention will increase the pressure on business and operating models.  Banking and financial services firms can look forward to:

Economic uncertainty: Recent economic data and interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S. indicate an economic slowdown has begun.  Its severity and duration cannot be predicted, but banks will feel the effects of a lingering mortgage-market crisis, rising consumer credit defaults, and disruptions affecting commercial lending, structured finance products, and securitization.  Some forecasters predict future shocks, such as a decline in commodity prices or downturn in commercial lending, that further threaten banks. 
Capital boosting and cost cutting: In response to economic pressures, banking and financial services executives will continue to seek capital to fortify their balance sheets, increase their safety and soundness, and weather the economic downturn.  Many banks will pursue cost savings as part of restructuring operations, becoming more efficient, or both.  Cost cutting may be mild or severe, if a bank is facing adverse circumstances like insolvency. 
Increasing regulatory scrutiny: Regulatory are reacting to the turn of events in the capital markets in 2007.  Scrutiny of capital adequacy, liquidity, credit risk, and management practices will pick up.  Supervisory actions and matters requiring board attention will grow in number.  Contingency planning and quality assurance for safety and soundness will receive new attention, as regulators push banks to find and adopt industry best practices that safeguard against future crises. 
Questions about information and systems for risk management: Over the last decade, many firms began initiatives to implement systems that address credit, financial, and operational risk, as well as compliance with laws and regulations.  Broadly speaking, these systems are designed to ensure compliance failures are prevented or detected and managed.  The capability of these systems – looking at risk through an integrative lens – may be called into question.  Banks may be required to rethink their information systems strategies and redesign their applications for managing risk.  Likewise, information asymmetries in the capital markets may receive new attention, leading firms to question what they thought they know about collateral underlying securities, concentration risk, economic and valuation models, and accounting practices. 
Investigations, lawsuits and jawboning in the town square: The effects of mortgage defaults, credit-card delinquencies, public outcries about banking practices, stock-price volatility, and growing losses foretell banks facing a new wave of investigations by state attorneys general, shareholder lawsuits, and pressure from consumer advocates.  Stories in the press bear this out.  The open question is how loud and deafening the trends will be over the next two years.
My own background has convinced me of the need to extend the disciplines of Lean Six Sigma to processes for creating governance structures, compliance monitoring, and managing operational risk.  Perhaps banks will benefit from a higher degree of knowledge integration (e.g., transplanting gauge methods to credit risk management). 
Endogenous Defense Starts with Dialogue and Knowledge
In many respects, the current state of banking and financial services is the product of thousands of decisions about risk taking.  Clearly, reward seeking won out, and we now face a period of living through the consequences of risks not being properly managed.  Lean and Six Sigma are proven tools for optimizing reward by eliminating waste, creating capacity, and reducing variation.  Resilience and reliability are a new frontier for Lean and Six Sigma, and the focus is squarely on transforming how risk is managed.
How Lean and Six Sigma contribute to the field of risk management is a story waiting to be told.  For starters, I encourage Lean Six Sigma professionals to build the relationships, internal networks, and critical mass necessary to transplant their best practices to the risk management and compliance functions at banks and financial services firms.  In conjunction, I recommend seeking new knowledge about relevant aspects of credit, financial and operational risk, as well as regulatory trends that will weigh heavily on operating models and expenses.
Lean and Six Sigma is a knowledge-based profession, and its value comes from connecting best practices to problems, so performance can be improved.  Clearly, for banks and financial services firms, enterprise risk is a huge problem to be solved in 2008.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:45:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Continuously Improving Continuous Improvement]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/continuously_improving_continuous_improvement.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I just spent three days at IQPC’s 2008 Lean Six Sigma and Process Improvement Summit where more than 600 process improvement professionals came together to learn, share and network.  In addition to getting a "booster shot" from Jack Welch, it was great hearing other professionals share their thoughts and experiences about how they have applied Six Sigma to facilitate continuous improvement, drive transformation and spark innovation.   I met more than 200 new people, acquired dozens of new ideas and even set up a potential benchmarking trip.  (By the way, the IQPC staff from London did a phenomenal job in providing an awesome speaker line-up as well as making sure things ran smoothly and on time.  Smashing job!)
As I listened to speaker after speaker, I would write down key points and new ideas in my journal.  It’s great being back where I can now put some of my key learnings into play.  My favorite part is taking the best of the best ideas, mixing them together and creating something new . . . but then that’s what continuous improvement is all about isn’t it?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:51:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Getting There From Here]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/getting_there_from_here.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It is the aim of most Continuous Improvement programs to transform the organization. Six Sigma usually attempts to do this in one of two ways:

By taking top-down approach, wherein the end state of transformation is articulated and communicated by organizational leaders, and stages and activities of the transformation are painted only in very broad strokes;
By taking a bottom-up approach, wherein the end state of transformation is either not clearly articulated or not known, but incremental activities within the transformation are planned and managed in great detail.
Of course, neither of these approaches can succeed on its own. But that doesn’t stop most organizations from trying one to the exclusion of the other. The approach chosen is often driven by the personal style of the figurehead for the transformation, which in turn is dictated by the general culture of the organization. While there are exceptions, it is rare to find a senior leader whose personal style diverges significantly from overall the organizational culture. This is for the simple reason that senior leaders typically don’t become senior leaders unless and until they learn how to fit in.
Intellectually, most people leading continuous improvement programs have the mental horsepower to figure out that neither approach works on its own. But realizing that and being able to do something about it are two different things. In my experience, leaders who are capable of giving birth to great and clear vision and rallying others to that vision are seldom equally capable of doing the detailed work necessary to actually get there. These folks can state with great conviction and clarity where we need to be a year from now, but they have no ability to describe what has to happen tomorrow and the next day and the day after that…eventually leading to the goal. They understand the destination, but not the route.
On the other hand, those who revel in the detail and are capable of writing the detailed plan to arrive at the destination are seldom equally capable of conceiving of and articulating a vision that will rally the organization. They understand the route, but not the destination.
The solution to this dilemma is clear: both skill sets are required, both things need to be done. You can’t choose one approach or the other of the two listed above, you need elements of both to succeed. We all know this. But doing it is excruciatingly difficult. It is very tough for a single individual to function equally well on both ends of the spectrum, and even tougher to put together a pairing or small group that does so.
I suspect many of you reading this will disagree with me, perhaps point out that all you need is a well rounded team of individuals with compensating strengths and weaknesses. But I just don’t see that happening very often, if ever, in real life. What I want to know is…why. Given that the solution isn’t hard to comprehend, why is it so difficult to make it happen?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Don't Want to Get Your Hands Dirty Collecting Data?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/dont_want_to_get_your_hands_dirty_collecting_data.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lost Tools # 2 Data
In this quick fire working environment using a ‘Sore Thumb Approach’ strategy (something hurts so you go fix it quick), we don’t always have time to collect the data. I’ve just taught the Measure phase to a wave of Green Belts and other than a SIPOC IT’S ALL ABOUT COLLECTING DATA. It’s easy and sometimes beneficial to just use the core tools:

Run Charts
Process Flowcharting
Fishbone and 5 Whys
Tally Charts
Histograms
Scatter Plots
But real Y=f(x) data collection; looking at all the up and down stream data collection points is invaluable. 
I’m actually downing tools for a fortnight and just going out and getting that data. 
If that means trailing through paper work with my tally chart or standing at the side of a railway line or station clicking my ‘data counter’ then so be it. I got to a stage last year where I thought I was too good to go out and get my hands dirty collecting data for a week or so, but sometimes that’s the best thing you can do.
Any thoughts?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:06:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Decision Point – Transactional Defect Bonanza]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_decision_point__transactional_defect_bonanza.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Having now delivered many transactional projects I have noticed common themes repeatedly occurring. These include:

IT Systems that have been poorly designed or operated
Inadequately thought through policies &amp; procedures
Opaque, non-existent or duplicate processes
Lack of viable information on process performance
But there is one area I would like to focus, decision points. People play a big part in the execution &amp; success of many transactional processes. Every day, many times over, they need to rapidly assimilate a situation and make the right decision on what action to take for success.
Consider a manufacturing process; say a bottling factory continually producing 20-40% defective products. I suspect that would seem unbelievable. They may well go out of business. But in a transactional environment that kind of defect rate is not unusual and can sometime go much higher.
Take a look at a generic example, the IT Helpdesk; this front-line support team receives numerous requests each day. They review the details and forward the request to the relevant technical support team.

The core value-adding element here is to understand the issue and deliver it to the correct team. What sort of influences impact on correctly making that decision?

Staff Training, Skills &amp; Experience
Policies &amp; Procedures
Information Available
Incentives
Now imagine the IT Help Desk’s primary metric is based on the time taken to pass a request on. The business is looking for efficiency, do it quick…..no quicker…..no quicker than that!
So here we are at the most vital part of the process, the key point where the person is evaluating and making the decision, they are adding the value and what happens, they rapidly scan it and forward on to the most likely candidate, job done, service level hit, a new defect has been created. Into the rework loop we go, technical team A calls technical team B to see if they should have got the request, they then call technical team C to see if they will take it. Technical Team A passes the request onto Technical Team C (the hidden factory).
But it’s a balancing act between being effective and being efficient? Can’t have unlimited time the business can’t afford the cost.
Being effective means securing the right outcome, getting the request to the right team. Being efficient means securing the right outcome, with the minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort. A process that is not firstly effective can never be efficient no matter how cheap it is to run (look at Rolled Throughput Yield).
And this is why Lean &amp; Six Sigma combines so well in a transactional environment. The Six Sigma part focuses on the root-causes for ineffectiveness it provides a wealth of tools to understand and address the vital few. The Lean part strips the waste out of inefficient processes. Does that mean you go DMAIC and include Lean or Value Stream Management and include statistics? I think its about removing the defects then speeding the process by removing the waste, but its different for every project.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:42:42 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Half-Life]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/half_life.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Every morning and every evening I walk to and from work. It can go from cold rainy days (like today!) to balmy summer evenings. I enjoy the exercise and get to watch the changing of the seasons. 
For those of you with a statistical bent this is the season to “guess the population distribution”.  On my return to work on Jan 2nd, I counted numerous joggers with new gear out pounding the streets. Over that week the numbers appeared to be quite similar. The following week saw a good showing but definitely down on the previous week. Now in the third week of Jan I think we have passed the half-life. Come February it will be back to normal.
I have nothing against joggers and have completed a couple of half-marathons in my time. It’s just interesting to notice as I steadfastly continue my regular journey. A bit like the tortoise and the hare. Look forward to special-cause next year.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:43:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A quality bubble?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_quality_bubble.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Gianna Clark notes that several hundred companies began their Six Sigma journeys about seven years ago. 
Is Six Sigma the quality equivalent of a stock market bubble? Are we cheerleaders of an irrational exuberance where performance economics do not match the hype we create? Is Six Sigma on the verge of becoming the next TQM - run over by advances in technology and easier approaches to improving performance? ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Conferences&nbsp;,&nbsp;Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Guest Blog&nbsp;,&nbsp;History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Podcasts&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:32:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Downgrading the applicability of Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/downgrading_the_applicability_of_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a recent blog at Harvard Business School Press Online, Tom Davenport challenges the applicability of Six Sigma. You can read his post at http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/davenport/. 
Coming from anyone else, a statement that Six Sigma "should only be used in product manufacturing, where the idea of reducing defects to one in six standard deviations really makes sense" might be dismissed out of hand. But Davenport has credibility as an expert on business process management and information technology.
Perhaps he’s right, and Six Sigma should be viewed as one among several toolkits to embed statistical methods and scientific thinking in managerial practices.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:21:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: How to approach Improve]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/how_to_approach_improve.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The very first Six Sigma book I read was “The Six Sigma Way”. The first page describes the story of a CEO jumping to solutions and being educated by a Black Belt on the methodology. He is turned around and states, “We’re not in the ‘Just Do It’ mode anymore”. My take-away being, we take a disciplined and structured approach we improve the right things in the right way.
The lack of an official “Six Sigma” can mean different versions being taught. Overall I think there is broad agreement on the approaches and tools we use in Define, Measure &amp; Analyse. Of course, the setting drives the specific tools we use (see What Flavour Are You). But if you are looking for variation take a look at Improve. 
Over the years I have been using the ASQ Black Belt body of knowledge as the basis for my continual learning, working through subjects in my own time to ensure I really understand them. I have got to Improve and there is a problem. Now the approach I was taught and deliver to our Green &amp; Black Belts is to:

Use creative thinking to develop a long-list of potential solutions
Use convergent thinking to develop the optimal solution
Establish and mitigate risks
Run pilots and DoE to establish and prove solution achieves goal
Develop implementation plan ready for toll gate
Reading through my now wide collection of books this is quite an orthodox approach with two exceptions. Firstly, the ASQ BoK I use describes Improve as below.

Design of experiments
Response surface methodology
Evolutionary operations
I checked and the newest version now introduces Implementation Planning, Risk Analysis and the Lean concepts of Waste, TOC &amp; Kaizen. Secondly my copy of  “Implementing Six Sigma” covers:

Design of experiments
Response surface methodology
Evolutionary operations
My guess is that the people who developed the ASQ BoK and “Implementing Six Sigma” must have collaborated and describe an Improve phase that is different to a number of other authors. There is no mention of the creative processes:- divergent thinking, six thinking hats, brain writing, or lateral thinking. 
As a practitioner what it means to me is I learn both and decide which to apply and when.  I am also updating my copy of the ASQ BoK to the latest version.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:50:26 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Verisimilitude]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/verisimilitude.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can save you the trouble of reading the blog entry below. I realize you are very busy. Here’s a summary:

Communications in the business world rely heavily on PowerPoint-style summaries.
At best, summaries omit crucial information and context present in the work being summarized.

Without this context, conclusions have to be accepted on faith.
At worst, summaries attempt to mask the fact that there is no foundational work to summarize in the first place.

This is usually an indication that the topic being summarized has not been explored with much enthusiasm, rigor, or depth.
PowerPoint-style summaries should be treated with great caution.
You’re welcome.
Business communications these days rely heavily on PowerPoint-style summaries. I can’t speak to non-business oriented bureaucracies, but I suspect the same is true of many of these organizations as well. Other, greater thinkers than me have already eviscerated PowerPoint as a cognitive tool (get yourself a copy of Tutfe’s essay The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint here, or read a bit about it here if you don’t want to spent the $7)
I don’t have much to add on that subject. But I do want to weigh in on what I perceive (anecdotally) to be a growing trend towards "high level" summarization of complicated subjects. And even though I already said I didn’t want to talk about PowerPoint, it’s almost impossible not to. PowerPoint is chicken to the egg of high level summaries prepared as bulleted lists.
The good news about well-prepared summaries are that they can distill a lot of complicated information down into a few concise, statements. Done well, this can turn voluminous data into relevant information, and relevant information into good decisions. But even when this is the case, more data and information is lost than retained. That has to be the case, otherwise the summary is useless. And unless the author is also the audience for the summary (which, outside of studying, is seldom the case), the process of summarization requires a whole string of subjective decisions that are not being made by those who require the output of the summary.
There are two problems with this. First, the reasoning behind those subjective decisions is seldom captured. Indeed, there may not even be any reasoning behind what stays and what goes. Which may or may not be okay, but failing to make the subjective reasoning explicit surely isn’t. Second, in the business world, summaries are almost always presented "up", which means the author of the summary usually has a vested interest in presenting "good" information. Summaries provide an excellent opportunity to do this, since they demand leakage of information. If 90% of the news is rain, it is possible to create a wholly accurate summary that is exclusively sunshine. Sometimes that isn’t just possible, it is required.
With both problems, the foundational issues is that a summary usually presents information devoid of the context and reasoning used to create the summary in the first place. This works well when the presenter and the audience are very much aligned in their thinking, or the basic assumptions required to create the summary are well-understood and agreed-upon. But these conditions are almost never satisfied, and when they aren’t summaries have to be taken on faith. In hierarchical organizations where “good” conclusions are rewarded, that’s a mighty scary prospect.
An even bigger problem is the growing number of "summaries" that masquerade as concentrated distillate, but don’t actually summarize anything at all. These PowerPoint decks inevitably state conclusions that seem to be commonalities teased from many observations, or numbers that appear to be statistics describing vast, carefully sampled populations. But ask a single question, scratch just below the surface, and you quickly find out that the surface is all there is. There is nothing being summarized at all.
Infinitely worse than the problems described above, this means that there was no context to be lost in the first place, no additional information to be omitted. No study has been conducted, no report prepared, no decisions made about what does and does not belong in the summary. There is just a series of semi-connected bullet points which, having been typed in PowerPoint and dimmed with each mouse click, inexplicably acquire a patina of veracity. There is an old word for this: verisimilitude. There’s a new one, too: truthiness.
Summaries are not inherently bad. Indeed, with the volume of information available in the business world today, summaries are often required for survival. When thoughtfully prepared and well-explained, summaries are a gift from the heavens to those drowning in data. But they almost never are, and it’s worth taking a step back now and then to think about what isn’t being included. Many times, the information left out, and the reasons for it’s omission, are just as interesting and informative as the summary itself.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma 2008 - Make it Personal]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_2008_make_it_personal.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As another year comes to a close, reflecting on what was accomplished in 2007 is a typical year-end activity.  After a quick review, a few smiles and a big sigh about things left undone, it’s time to start on your 2008 list.  
While you are putting together your ’list’ of things to do for 2008, somewhere between finishing your FMEA and solving world hunger, remember to include some things that will help you grow as a Six Sigma professional.  For example, learn a new tool, expand your coaching skills, embark on a DFSS journey, or strengthen your change management skills.   Personal development, while initially focused on improving your individual skills, will eventually be reflected in your customer’s satisfaction rating or your company’s bottom line.  
As Six Sigma professionals, it is up to each of us to constantly improve our skills so that we can continue to find new and innovative ways for Six Sigma to bring value to our business.  
For me, honing my skills and constantly learning new things is important because being able to make a difference is not just part of my job, it’s personal.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:27:10 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Year-end Six Sigma Jingle]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/year_end_six_sigma_jingle.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
It’s that time of year again.  The year-end stress of closing Six Sigma projects is enough to make any Black Belt sing the blues.   But don’t worry, here’s a little song (sung to the tune of Jingle Bells) that will help you get through the holiday rush.
Year-end Six Sigma Jingle


Dashing through the halls, 
With control charts in your hand, 
You’ve finally got the ’x’ 
to stay within the band 
It’s ten days til ’08 
Your project has to close 
If you don’t get that phase gate done 
Your year-end goal is hosed  - Oh 

 
Find the ‘x’, drive the ‘y’ 
Make a change or two 
Check that data, pass the test 
Don’t stop until you’re through 

 
Find the ‘x’, drive the ‘y’ 
Make a change or two 
Close that project, make the goal 
Or all you’ll get is "poo" 
Special Message:  To all you Six Sigma zealots out there:  Get your band of belts together and sing it.  I’ll be watching for your debut on You Tube!

 
Happy Holidays to all!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:38:23 -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: Christmas Conundrum]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/christmas_conundrum.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
Here is a take on the Christmas challenge for you, Retrograde Chess. Your aim is to identify the missing piece. This position was reached only through legal chess moves.

A word of caution, its tough, it took me a few days to crack and I found coming back to it a regular intervals helped. If you decide to try it, good luck!
Merry Christmas]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:52:43 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Enabling Projects- Enabling Six Sigma Success]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/enabling_projects_enabling_six_sigma_success.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Most Six Sigma speak I’ve heard tries to categorize projects into “hard” vs. “soft” savings. Hard savings projects focus on cutting costs, increasing capacity, etc., while soft savings projects generally deal more with topics where dollar value may not be easily to quantify (e.g. environmental performance, employee morale, etc.). 
However, there is another type of project emphasis that often gets overlooked. I’m speaking of enabler projects.  I always tell people that Six Sigma is not about saving the world but rather taking pieces of a problem and solving it in smaller manageable chunks.  For a great number of technical projects I have been mentoring lately, I’ve noticed enabling projects are needed before the hard savings work can be scoped and completed.
An enabling project can focus on needs such as measurement systems, pre trial screening work (if your project is very complex and will require evolutionary operations, DOE, etc.), and control studies.  The enabling project in itself could be a stand alone Six Sigma project, depending on if a known solution exists for the problem.  For example, Company X may have been sighted by a regulatory agency. The company knows it has a problem and is looking to Six Sigma, however no measurement system is in place or is defined. It is very difficult to “check” your measurement system in Measure phase when you don’t have one or know the ongoing extent of when defining your problem in Define phase.
The benefit to an enabling project is it reduces the chances of having roadblocks when you get to the point of doing improvement work on your key Six Sigma project. Another benefit is for those who work in a culture where there is a strong push to have projects expediently completed, you can get some of the work done in advance (and the time won’t be counted against your project).]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:22:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Time – Cost – Quality]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/time__cost__quality.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The triple constraints triangle (below) is used to show the tensions a project needs to balance when meeting its objectives. Normally set at the beginning of the project, a scope change in any one dimension will have an effect on at least one other dimension e.g. a reduction in time can increase costs or reduce quality. This straightforward approach helps explain the challenges a project can face.

Now individual scope decisions are always highly specific, but I have seen a clear preference across stakeholders in the priority &amp; importance they place on these constraints. 
This preference comes across in how they implicitly judge the success of the project. For example a stakeholder whose overriding belief that Time is the key constraint will typically focus on the project schedule and question what’s stopping the delivery and the blockages. The Cost &amp; Quality constraints are less frequently questioned. Understanding this stakeholder preference helps design communications to fit their needs. 
In a more radical example leadership teams can push one of the constraints to an extreme, e.g. Cost can become the “only” consideration when things turn bad. This focus on delivering the single constraint impacts the other two and can cause unintended consequences such as low satisfaction scores.
I thought you could carve-up the constraints into the “Voice of” framework so when implementing an improvement project put the Cost &amp; Time constraints into VoB and the Quality into VoC, but I have found this difficult to explain and did not add much value. Anyone with better insight here please advise.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:10:48 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Eco-efficiency at the server farm]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/eco_efficiency_at_the_server_farm.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In his Rough Type blog, Nicholas Carr -- contrarian author of the book, Does IT Matter? -- comments on Microsoft's plans to build a data center in Siberia and upcoming completion of the world's largest data center in Chicago.  Construction of these facilities costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and each will hold tends of thousands of servers.  Microsoft's Chicago data center will employ only 35 to 50 people.  Apparently, climate in Chicago and Siberia were prominent in these sites being selected because their colder weather makes it cheaper to cool the data center equipment.  Large server farms built for environmental efficiency and staffed by just a few people -- is green physical and virtual platform design a new frontier for Design for Six Sigma?  Microsoft is a big proponent of Lean Six Sigma.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:25:08 -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: Elevating strategic relevance: Understand and inform strategy implementation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/elevating_strategic_relevance_understand_and_inform_strategy_implementation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My last blog discussed elevating the strategic relevance of Lean, Six Sigma and process excellence.  My view is that mature Process Excellence Organizations enjoy or achieve credibility and success by executing a flexible performance-improvement process—attacking the top priorities, employing the best tools, selecting the right projects and leveraging organizational momentum.  The first thing mature Process Excellence Organizations do well is informing strategy setting and implementation (beginning with their own understanding of their enterprise’s strategy).
The most successful process improvement professionals are proactive rather than reactive about understanding and discussing strategy.  Executive level process excellence leaders share in common an understanding of the competitive position of their companies, options to shape competitiveness, and critical factors for success.  Further, these individuals understand the mechanics of a strategic management process and dynamics of organizational behavior that affect managerial commitment to change, execution against a plan, and responsiveness to opportunities and threats.
Positioning of the Process Excellence Organization determines its access to inform strategy setting and implementation.  Commitment from the COO to deploy best practices, for example, is more likely to result in Lean and Six Sigma becoming strategic levers, embedded in an organization’s culture and practice, than localized, bottom-up advocacy by a business unit executive, shared services leader or plant manager.  Yet unless market pressure, a crisis or some other impetus motivates a senior executive team to broadly rely on Lean and Six Sigma, Process Excellence Organizations must demonstrate credibility through their recommendations to improve performance and their track record of delivering returns to their companies.
Lean and Six Sigma professionals may ask how they are to shape strategy setting and implementation, if they lack access to regularly advise and influence senior leaders at their companies—the CEO, COO, CFO and especially the senior vice presidents in charge of business units, operations and technology.  Starting from their current base of deployment, Process Excellence Organizations should position themselves to identify and focus on strategically aligned opportunities for Lean and Six Sigma.
My assertion may not be fruitful in bureaucratic organizations—such as government institutions where the pace of change is slow, and status quo prevails.  At other companies the Process Excellence Organization can influence strategy. There is the annual planning cycle, where Lean and Six Sigma can inform the definition of change initiatives and funding of these projects, as well as progressive reduction of sales, general and administrative expenses.  Second, Process Excellence Organizations can bring a unique perspective to dialogue about longer-term strategies and programs.
Process Excellence Organizations can influence strategy because the strategic decision-making is ambiguous, dynamic and often chaotic.  Academics frame strategic planning as a formal process of answering three questions: (1) What does the business do?  (2) Form whom does it do these things?  (3) How does the business excel?  And the process has stages: evaluating the current situation, defining goals, mapping a route to achieve these goals, and monitoring implementation.  In a formal sense, the stages of strategic planning are not unlike the Deming lifecycle of planning, doing, studying and acting.  In practice, though, strategic planning is a communicative process, and strategies emerge from the habits and behaviors of organizations and their managers.  Executive dialogue, shareholder concerns, customer interactions, supplier dynamics, labor relations, information technologies, managerial fads all interact to form the content of strategy and direction of execution.
As an aside, I encourage anyone interested in sociological and behavioral approaches to strategy to look into research focusing on strategy as practice.  Over the last three decades, strategy research has tended to focus increasingly on organizational strategies as opposed to the activities of people in organizations as they define, elaborate, and implement strategies.  In contrast, strategy as practice is concerned with issues of practice within organizational contexts.  Lancaster University’s Management School is a good source of information about strategy as practice.
Start with the basics
Much is written about Lean and Six Sigma as tools for cost reduction.  More recently, the exploits of Starwood, Procter and Gamble, Capital One, and others highlight their relevance to innovation.  In terms of basic strategies, companies have three options, according to Michael Porter and others: low-cost production, differentiation, or some combination of the two.
Low cost production is a familiar paradigm among Lean and Six Sigma professionals in manufacturing, consumer products, healthcare, retail and service, and financial services industries.  Every industry has its favorite measures of efficiency: funding costs as a percentage of portfolio size for a mutual fund, percent of seats sold per airline flight, gross margin for product categories, etc.  Lean and Six Sigma professionals are familiar with the notion that reducing defects or eliminating cycle time can improve operating metrics, and these metrics contribute to the enablers of low cost production (e.g., economies of scale).
Differentiation is less familiar, especially for those of us who have focused on reducing variance of a distribution instead of shifting a mean.  Innovation is one way to differentiate.  Apple Computer is the most interesting, popular case study of innovation in the business literature today.  Another example is Proctor and Gamble’s shared services business unit.  After four years of successful cost cutting, Proctor and Gamble is now focused on managing its shared services as a business—figuring that exploiting core competencies in brand management and aligning delivery with marketing strategies can create sources of differentiation.  Whereas efficient production and processes are appropriable, strategies of differentiation are hard to craft and implement.
Corporate strategies are never as simple as low cost production or differentiation.  Rather, they emerge from the structures, habits and power in industries and at companies.  A few companies do well at managing strategy.  Most other are stuck in the middle—including companies with a significant investment in Lean and Six Sigma training and deployment.
A process excellence paradox highlights why understanding strategy is important—starting with the basics to develop a perspective on an enterprise’s current competitive position and future outlook.  The paradox goes something like this: Lean and Six Sigma have potential to raise any company to industry leader status, but too often returns on investing in process excellence are measured in six and seven figures instead of payback multiples greater than 20:1.  Pulling process excellence out of a rut and companies ahead in their industry has to be an exercise in strategic execution.
Institute disciplines to understand strategy
Efforts to understand strategy need to be disciplined, more than informal or one-off conversations.  Depending on the potential of the process excellence organization, many tools are available to understand strategies and their implementation at companies.  If formalizing disciplines to understand strategy is new, my advice is to start with a brown-bag discussion of your company within the process excellence organization or among its professionals and key business partners.  Things to cover include the economics of your firm’s industry, the external environment in which your company operates, and the internal capabilities of your firm.
The discussion should focus on understanding current state and future direction of the company at three levels of strategy: enterprise, business units and functions.  Leverage of Lean and Six Sigma tools is most often part of functional strategies, such as a multiyear plan to transform the operations and technology of a company or expand plant infrastructure in an overseas location.  Finding opportunities to have strategic impact depends on plans for the company and its business units.
These discussions do not need to produce a specific deliverable, but should factor into deployment planning and performance measurement for process excellence.  A number of frameworks can assist strategy discussions and create segues to efforts to evangelize, measure and govern process excellence.  One of my favorites is McKinsey’s “Star” or “7S” framework because it offers a holistic context in which to examine strategy implementation.
Accumulate knowledge from staff and line functions
By signaling its interest in understanding strategy, process excellence organizations may accumulate sufficient knowledge of strategy from their own professionals, colleagues in business areas and executive sponsors.  In my experience, Lean and Six Sigma advocates are willing to share knowledge and generous with information.  Though it never hurts to cast a wide net for knowledge and reach out to unlikely sources.
 Here are a few places to look:

Strategic planning: Many large companies have a strategic planning function, and a Chief Strategy Officer is becoming fashionable.  Often staffed by ex-management consultants, strategic planning departments provide analysis and advice to senior management about competitive positioning of the company.  While these departments may guard their work, they can facilitate building mind share with senior executives.
Corporate development: If your company relies on mergers and acquisitions to grow and compete, the team in charge of corporate development may provide a forward-looking perspective on the company, and assist tactical positioning of the process excellence organization.  Post-acquisition integration is a driver of strategic risk, and this is an area where Lean and Six Sigma can add value.
Corporate planning, budgeting and finance: These functions manage the multiyear and annual process of budgeting for programs, initiatives and operations.  Corporate planning functions can provide information about the efficiency of the company and performance of internal firm capabilities (e.g., operating metrics and ratios).  Information from the corporate planning department can be instrumental and is often necessary to sell a deployment strategy and benefits tracking process to senior management.
Financial engineering and modeling: Not all companies employ financial engineers or utilize financial modeling outside the strategic planning department.  At banks, insurance companies and firms with complex balance sheets, financial engineering disciplines can provide knowledge about the esoteric aspects of corporate finance that impact financial health and shareholder value.  Expertise in corporate finance is a weakness for most process excellence organizations that plan to market Lean and Six Sigma to finance departments.
Market research: Market research departments review secondary data, conduct original studies, and use qualitative methods to understand market and customer requirements.  Their work is a sophisticated voice of customer process, so market research managers can provide unique information about how markets and customers perceive a company.  Obtaining input from the market research department can assist with framing your understanding of market-facing strategies and opportunities to improve customer-facing processes.
Information technology: In companies that rely on information (most organizations today), the information technology architecture, program management office and database administration functions can provide useful information about problems with technology that limit internal firm capabilities.  In my experience with Six Sigma, data quality is an overlooked area that holds real potential for having strategic impact on cost and customer satisfaction.
Internal audit: Internal audit departments have a deep understanding of internal capabilities gained from rotational audits of all parts of a company.  Reaching out to an internal audit director requires sensitivity to matters of professional independence.  An internal auditor’s perspective on planning and control systems can provide useful information about governance, risk and compliance constraints that will impact opportunity identification and project selection.
Human resources: Many human resources departments cover organizational development and performance management.  Human resources managers who specialize in these areas can provide useful information about how raising employee satisfaction, reducing turnover and generally improving human capital will boost company performance.
These are a few areas where conversations about strategy may yield unexpected insight.  When reaching out, it’s important to frame discussions with these areas.  Asking focused questions, gathering perspectives, and testing impressions of a company’s strategy are the right level for these discussions.  If opportunities for Lean and Six Sigma come up, capture them in a pipeline of future projects and carry forward the discussion to deployment when the time is right.
Inform strategy through ideas for process excellence
The most successful process excellence organizations guide themselves with a deployment plan and through a governance process.  Some companies charter a management committee to decide where to apply Lean and Six Sigma and monitor realization of benefits.  In addition to promoting rigorous project selection, formal governance offers a forum in which to discuss strategies and influence big decisions.  Process excellence organizations with a bottom-up or less formal structure may want to pitch senior executives on possibilities for the company – pilot projects that may lead to strategic initiatives or higher impact participation of Lean and Six Sigma in ongoing initiatives.
To prepare for these discussions, the process excellence organization needs to synthesize its understanding of the company’s strategy.  One approach is to prepare an aide memoir that documents the following:

Industry and company facts
Key financial and operating metrics
Industry facts and analysis
Assessment of internal firm capabilities
Overviews of key company strategies and initiatives
Opportunities for process excellence
Key success factors for deployment
An aide memoir can take on many forms, and it should guide marketing and governance of Lean and Six Sigma deployment within a company.  To prepare an aide memoir, opportunities for process excellence need to be defined and mapped to company strategies and initiatives.  In this respect, one purpose of an aide memoir is to serve as the foundation of a marketing plan.
Ideation of opportunities is perhaps the most critical and actionable part of understanding and informing strategy.  In my experience, the most successful process excellence organizations use tacit or explicit methods to define opportunities to further implementation of strategy through Lean, Six Sigma and other best practices.  One approach is to set aside time for brainstorming at key points after conversations about strategy with business partners in a company.  The purpose of these sessions is to creatively tackle problems facing the company where Lean and Six Sigma can add value.  Another is to use nominal group techniques to structure similar discussions and to conduct a concurrent review of project opportunities in the pipeline.
Informing strategy depends on ideas from the process excellence organization.  In fact, informing strategy is continuous, subconscious and played out through the marketing, selling, execution and measurement of Lean and Six Sigma projects.  Bringing opportunities to the project selection process that are informed by an understanding of corporate strategy will help the process excellence organization create mindshare with senior management and build credibility through its focus on solving the most relevant problems through Lean and Six Sigma.
The deployment plan is a cornerstone of execution by the process excellence organization.  My next blog will cover deployment, starting with the early activities of marketing and selling process excellence.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:18:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Six Sigma Thanksgiving]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_six_sigma_thanksgiving.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ever wonder what a Six Sigma Thanksgiving would be like?   Here’s a glimpse . . .
99.9997% of the turkey would get eaten so you don’t have to eat turkey sandwiches every day for the next two weeks
99.9997% of the mashed potatoes won’t have lumps
99.9997% of the desserts taste great and have no calories
99.9997% of the dishes get washed by someone else
and best of all, 99.9997% of your family gets along with one another (yeah right)
May you all have a Six Sigma Thanksgiving!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:45:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Organizing Concepts]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/organizing_concepts.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A conversation I regularly get into involves discussion of the difficulties encountered when deploying Six Sigma in an environment that is already saturated with other programs and toolsets. A majority percentage of the time the discussion is about deploying Six Sigma in an area where Lean is already well established, but there are many other variations out there.
Certainly it is possible to create conditions where Six Sigma plays nicely with other disciplines. First order combinations like Lean Sigma and its many variants are an example of this. So are higher order hybrids, like Design for Lean Six Sigma Using Triz. And from an intellectual perspective, there is a lot of appeal to this approach. If you think about it hard enough, there are significant synergies to be explored and interesting combinations to be leveraged.
But from a practical perspective, I’m not so sure. For my money, a significant amount of the value of a program like Six Sigma comes from its ability to function as an organizing concept. It gives the organization something to rally around. It crystallizes diverse thoughts and aligns what might otherwise be diverse efforts as improvement. Six Sigma has value simply as an excuse to get everyone thinking about problems in the same way. Diverse groups come together through training programs to have prolonged discussions about approaches to problem solving. Results (and lack thereof) start to get visibility. Executives take an interest. People on the shop floor get involved. Everyone goes on the journey together. Even if you don’t think that the content of Six Sigma is useful, the cohesion of thought and action it produces clearly has value.
The thing is, this is true of almost any program properly deployed. Lean will certainly do it. Numerous safety programs do it. Good business transformation initiatives do it. Implementation of major systems like SAP or Oracle do it. Assuming you can execute, the one thing you need to get this sort of benefit is a simple, compelling organizing concept. Or to put it more colloquially, you need an approach. The simpler and more persuasive, the better.
If you buy this line of thinking – that a large part of the value of any particular organizational program lies in the fact that it is a program at all, not in its content – then the question of how to deploy multiple overlapping programs becomes easy to answer. Don’t do it. If you already have an organization succeeding with Lean, don’t mess with it by deploying Six Sigma on top. You’ve got your organizing concept. Adding another program on top (or even worse, visibly switching to the new program from the old one) can do nothing but detract from that focus. Simpler is better in terms of rallying a group around a way of thinking, even if there really are synergies to be explored through more complicated approaches.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not suggesting that new toolsets and approaches shouldn’t be added in over time, and that new techniques shouldn’t constantly be considered. But I am suggesting that moving too far away from an organizing concept that is already working well is a mistake to be avoided.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Scary Six Sigma Moments]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/scary_six_sigma_moments.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It’s Halloween and what could possibly be scarier than monsters and goblins?  Here’s a top ten list of frightening Six Sigma moments that might send chills up your spine!
Number 10:  Having the network go down when you are on question 49 of 50 of your on-line Black Belt exam.
Number 9:  Being in the improve phase and you still haven’t figured out who the process owner is
Number 8: Being assigned a training project that has no data
Number 7:  Being asked to mentor your boss on a Green Belt project (good luck)
Number 6:  Finding out that Minitab is your only friend :(
Number 5:  Reporting that you have a significant p-value and being shown to the bathroom
Number 4:  Scheduling a meeting with your Project Champion and he or she doesn't know who you are
Number 3:  Discovering that your Black Belt class just ate the M&amp;Ms that you have been using for your class MSA exercise (ugh)
Number 2:  Being invited to a corporate pandemic planning meeting because they heard you were leading a  Sick Sigma project.
Number 1:  Including DMAIC in a text message and having the recipient reply "Not today, my wife is in town".
Many thanks to my colleagues Jeanne (pronounced Zhahn), Cindi and Mary Beth for helping me come up with some scary Six Sigma moments to share.   Happy Halloween!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:43:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Elevating the Strategic Relevance of Process Excellence]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/elevating_the_strategic_relevance_of_process_excellence.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like many companies in the Fortune 1000, we are planning 2008. At leadership meetings, around conference room tables and in hallway conversations, we are asking big questions: What will our industry look like? How will external trends affect us? How should our business model change? What capabilities do we need? Do we have them? What level of cost savings will boost our stock price?
These conversations can create organizational angst: senior executives worrying about tenure, middle managers fearing loss of their jobs or attrition of star performers, and analysts feeling the effects of declining morale. Alternatively, they can create optimism: drive to succeed at all levels, commitment to company success and drive for big bonuses. Reality is often somewhere in between—a mix of pessimism, optimism and indifference. We fall into the “somewhere in between” crowd.
Deploying Lean or Six Sigma in an organization with strategic ambiguity is no easy task, especially if the Process Excellence Organization has not cemented leadership advocacy (a key success factor for adoption), demonstrated value, and achieved the cultural stickiness that Lean and Six Sigma enjoy at mature, self-optimizing companies. Self-defeating Six Sigma organizations wait for the next round of strategic priorities to be dictated, so they can update their deployment plans and complete new waves of projects. Self-directing Process Excellence Organizations inform strategic debate and shape their utilization—positioning their sponsors (or executives who will become their sponsors) and companies to achieve payback multiples (benefits of Lean and Six Sigma divided by the costs of deployment) greater than 10:1.
Having worked on transformation initiatives and in a champion role, my views of what differentiates effective from run-of-the-mill Process Excellence Organizations are evolving. Analytical rigor, methodological purity and quantitative exactness differentiate process improvement professionals, but critical thinking about strategy, marketing prowess inside a company and a pipeline to talent will set up Process Excellence Organizations to succeed. 
With strategic planning in full force, here is the first part of a series to help Process Excellence Organizations think about improving their value and odds of success.  Excellence is a process.  Executives might think Lean and Six Sigma professionals manage their own activities as a process-centric enterprise within an enterprise. My own experience suggests that we spend so much time improving company processes that management of our own process—deploying Lean and Six Sigma to improve performance (i.e., quality, efficiency, service innovation, customer satisfaction, shareholder value)—does not achieve the right level of maturity. And so a vicious cycle emerges: we work on the wrong projects; deployment does not produce big bangs; executives lose patience; we redeploy, reorient or disappear; companies embark on new quality journeys after forgetting pains of the past.
The hallmark of mature Process Excellence Organizations is their flexibility. A few years ago, a colleague at a well-known consultancy highlighted how Six Sigma can be inflexible. A client engaged his firm to recommend cost reductions. The engagement team identified redundant computer software. Wanting to achieve a quick win, a procurement executive announced retirement of the software in 45 days, unless business lines could justify the cost of redundant licenses and products. A few users complained, but the executive canceled the licenses. My colleague overheard a skeptical Black Belt comment that the executive made a quick decision and should have completed a DMAIC project to understand the true benefits and ensure canceling the licenses would not disrupt business processes. DMAIC projects at the client took 3-6 months. The analysis to identify the redundant software took 2-3 days. The procurement executive determined in a meeting that canceling the software would not have significant effects (besides whining by people who would have to begin using another, comparable product). The savings from the decision were over $1 million per year. The Black Belt showed a lack of flexibility. 
If my comments about flexibility seem insensitive to the rigor of Lean and Six Sigma, ask a personal question: Would you rather save enough money to retire over 10 years or 30?  CEOs are motivated by returns, and organizations that can grow the top line, shrink expenses and improve the bottom line the fastest enjoy the most credibility.  
Methodological and analytical rigor is a prerequisite for any Lean or Six Sigma effort to succeed. Taking a broader perspective, mature Process Excellence Organizations enjoy or achieve credibility and success by executing a flexible performance-improvement process—attacking the top priorities, employing the best tools, selecting the right projects and leveraging organizational momentum.  
Mature process excellence organizations address five things.  Over the next several weeks, I will discuss characteristics of mature Process Excellence organizations. They are:
1. Understand and inform strategy setting and implementation2. Create relationships and governance through sales and marketing3. Facilitate identification of the right mix of quick wins and big bangs4. Pull people into process excellence and push knowledge to the business5. Manage the process excellence organization like a consulting business
The five-part series will draw on research, case studies, personal experience and opinions to communicate ideas that Lean and Six Sigma practitioners can evaluate, adopt, reject or deride as whimsy. After a long-term absence from iSixSigma, my goal is to encourage the blog community to raise the strategic relevance of Lean and Six Sigma at their companies.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Where Have All the Hours Gone?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/where_have_all_the_hours_gone.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hours . . . Days . . . Weeks . . . Months . . . Years . . .  Seems like some Six Sigma projects drag on forever.  But the question here is not how long does it take to complete a project because that really depends on the project scope.  The real question is what unnecessarily extends project cycle time.   Being the Six Sigma zealot that I am, I decided to get some data and found that for my situation, the top four drivers of extended project cycle time include:

Data Availability:  The type of data needed is either not readily available, is available but not reliable or will require several weeks or months to collect.
Implementation Barriers:  This includes the time it takes to get the organization bought into the proposed change as well as having resources to implement the proposed change.
Project Management Issues:  Project due dates and phase gate expectations are not clearly defined and scope creep is not kept at bay.
Team Member Availability:  Everyone’s schedules are busy and getting the right folks together in one room at a certain time for a team meeting sometimes takes weeks.
It is important to note that the top four items noted above may not be the top four project cycle time drivers in your organization.  To find out why (or maybe I should say what is driving your "Y") you will need to collect data of your own.   Other important factors such as project linkage to company objectives, level of Six Sigma buy-in and Black Belt leadership skills are just a few of the other key inputs that need to be considered.  A good fishbone and C&amp;E Matrix can help you shape the development of a survey to capture information for your situation.  Narrowing the scope or at least being able to segment projects worked by full-time versus part-time resources will provide more clarity related to drivers (other than too much other stuff to do).  
Identifying the drivers of extended project cycle time for your organization is time well spent and can help address the perception that "Six Sigma" takes too long to solve problems.   And, the next time someone asks you "Where have all the hours gone?" you won’t have to sing ’em a song because you have data.  (When will they ever learn?)]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:05:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: No buy-in, no project]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/no_buy_in_no_project.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Each company probably would have strategized targets to achieve on annually. In Starwood they are know as Big 5’s. Big 5’s are tactical targets that support the company’s global initiatives and global objectives; normally a mixture of financial and non-financial but measurable targets. These targets ‘flow down’ from divisional presidents’ offices’ to area directors and down to general managers of individual hotels. The general manager’s targets in turn are supported by each senior team member’s Big 5’s. Members of the management (who are stakeholders of processes as well) evaluate whether Six Sigma can be used as a platform to achieve Big 5’s. If there’s no clear link, it’ll probably mean no buy-in from stakeholders. 
When there’s no buy-in, Black Belts are told to look at the next item in the pipeline. This is to avoid the project ‘dying’ halfway.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Vincent Chin]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:56:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: To p Or Not To p]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/to_p_or_not_to_p.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Let me end the suspense: not to p. At least for me. Also not to F. And not to t.
I got thinking about this topic after reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about “sloppy analysis” in scientific studies. That article is here, but you'll have to pay to see it. However, the primary source for the article, available here, is an open access study by John Ioannidis. What originally caught my eye in the Wall Street Journal article was this zinger:

Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets. "People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual," Dr. Ioannidis said.
This situation sounded very familiar to me. In fact, substitute “Six Sigma” for “science” in the first sentence and I think the passage becomes even more true. We, as a Six Sigma community, rely far too much on formal tests of statistical significance to tell us what to do.
Statistical significance is nothing more and nothing less than a comparison of one thing to another. A comparison of a supposed “signal” to observed “noise” is the classic example. What gets forgotten is that when we experiment or otherwise collect data, we have complete and total control over what goes in both buckets. We decide what gets counted as signal, and what gets counted as noise. So the results depend entirely on how we sample. And there is no statistical test that can assess significance with this in mind,  because it's not a statistical question. It's a practical one. Want better p-values? Sample differently. Want to make your F-test look good? Or bad? Change how you collect the data. Want that t-test to have a different result? Run the study again. Go ahead. Try. It's really easy.
Don't believe me? Check out Ioannidis’ study, which goes into much greater depth on this topic than I have the time (or admittedly, the intellect) to do. And note in particular the comments about lack of replicability of most studies, regardless of p-values. In other words, a study with a high p-value is no more likely to repeat than one with a low p-value. And the standard of p must be less than 0.05 has no practical relevance at all. To anything. Scary, right?
Now don't get me wrong; I certainly don't intend to condone manipulation of data to make things “look good” or support some pre-determined outcome when they really don't. But on the other hand, I want to be very clear that blind faith in statistical test is just as bad. If you are letting software make business decisions for you on the basis of a p-value or F-test, you are behaving foolishly. After all, who made up the rules about what does and doesn't constitute statistical significance? What were the circumstances, and what were they trying to do? Unless the circumstances were the same as yours and they were trying to do the same thing you are, you should make up your own mind. What your software package happens to think about statistical significance out to be immaterial.
So what good are these tests of statistical significance? Well, for enumerative work on historical datasets they can be useful. But in the world of Six Sigma where we are charged with predicting the future behavior of a process, let me be clear: they aren't much good at all. You should be making your own decisions on what is and isn't significant in your data. This will be based on tolerance for risk and how well you have sampled the process, among other things. You need to fully understand the level of knowledge you have based on your sampling strategy, assess your confidence in your conclusions accordingly, and make the best decision you can about how to proceed based on the particular situation you are in. Beyond some basic number-crunching, these are practical questions and concerns, not statistical ones.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Customers]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/customers.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Customer relationship, customer insight, customer retention, customer proposition, customer experience, customer journey, customer-centric, customer analytics, customer loyalty, customer value, customer satisfaction, customer equity, customer intelligence, customer contact strategy……the poor customer they have been so slice-n-diced by so many people over so many years they must be a messy pile of little cubes on the floor. So finding something new about customers is always a pleasure.
Now I have been dabbling a little in the area of Customer Experience.  I’m working on a project where we are modelling the behaviour of our customers over the last three-years and linking this to the interactions they have with us. A bit of research took me to material on Customer Journey so accordingly I got in contact with our in-house team. This resulted in me getting a copy of “Building Great Customer Experience” by Beyond Philosophy.
Start by imagining you’re a Lean Six Sigma practitioner and you invest considerable time on Voice of the Customer research to understand what your customers care about and gather their explicit &amp; implicit needs. It is likely this would include focus groups, kano-analysis, affinity diagrams and moment of truth analysis to produce a clear and rational CTQ-Tree. You have your well defined targets e.g. deliver within 5 minutes of appointment time, include follow-up call to confirm customer satisfied, greet customer by name on arrival. 
All this is great, we can define the physical things we need to deliver for a great customer experience. But what this book gave me was one of those ‘Aha!’ light-bulb moments. They take the customer experience one step forward. Take for example two scenarios of checking into a hotel:
Scenario 1: Arrive 6pm direct from busy day in officeClerk very busy and have to wait 10 minutes (CTQ: - 5 min max). Telephone rings and clerk takes call while dealing with me (CTQ: - customer comes first). Room key doesn’t work and need to return for new key (CTQ: - right first time).

Am I bothered? Not really, stuff happens.
Scenario 2: Arrive 11:45pm after 7-hour dreadful journeyThe situation is exactly the same as before.

Am I bothered? Light the blue touch paper and stand well back.
In a nutshell what they say is, “The physical CTQ’s are great and without them you will always struggle in business, but people’s emotions play a bigger part in the decision making process”. So obvious but its good to have it explained and gives my VoC a new dimension, variable CTQ’s. I believe this came from the original work of Daniel Goleman on Emotional Intelligence. Extremely useful to know about.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:24:38 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean adoption in the housing industry]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_adoption_in_the_housing_industry.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") released recently a study of Lean adoption at nine manufactured housing plants. HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research and the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance were sponsors of the study. The study highlights the benefits of Lean to making production of manufacturing housing more efficient and improving the availability of affordable housing. Details of the study are at www.huduser.org/publications/destech/pilotstudy.html.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:58:51 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: I have been blind]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/i_have_been_blind.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Now I like to think I am quite an objective &amp; freethinking person and don’t always follow the herd when I think something is wrong. I’m not a complete contrarian but am willing to “go it alone” when I feel something is important. So it is a great disappointment to me to say I have only recently discovered DoE. Let me explain the circumstance of enlightenment first.
Over about a month, one of our processes fires two letters and an outbound telephone call to our customers to achieve a particular goal. The process is about 50% effective and we were discussing options for improvement. People talked about changing the wording on the letters or the call date. During the meeting, memories rushed-in of me in BB training, adjusting the settings on a catapult and measuring the distance the ball travelled and I slowly said, “we…could...design...an...Experiment”. I nearly pulled it off but didn’t quite have the confidence or conviction to convince people that DoE would fit the bill.
As I do, I dived into the DoE material, we had a classic 3-factor, 2-level, factorial experiment and I didn’t see it! How could I have got myself into a situation where I have ignored one of the fundamental tools of Lean Six Sigma? How could I have been so blind?
Since my earliest days on BB training when we covered DoE, the picture was painted of a tool used in manufacturing that really does not transfer into a transactional environment. The exercise was “manufacturing”, the examples were manufacturing. The books I have give manufacturing DoE examples; one of the more transactional books completely ignores it and most give a passing reference. My coaches have never really talked about using DoE and when they did they talked about it being difficult to apply in a transactional environment. 
I never really challenged the orthodoxy here and feel I have really missed out. Am making serious amends and it’s a strict study diet of confounding, blocking, attribute response, response surface design and loss function for me.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:28:45 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Seeing the wood from the trees]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/seeing_the_wood_from_the_trees.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been working with my colleague, Dave Baker, here at Aviva and we have been researching the long-term behaviour of our processes. 
Now I am not going to go down the path of process capability analysis, Cp, Cpk, Zshift and the like. Take a look at this simple time series plot to see why.

Over the long-term some of our processes are extremely seasonal and what we were interested in is understanding was how much of the process variation was due to seasonality, long-term trend or random process variation. It has been a bit of the blind leading the blind; we have reviewed statistics books, experimented in Minitab and tried to figure this out. 
What we found was Minitab has a capability to decompose the data and with a bit of experimentation we produced an output that showed the seasonal variation and long-term trend.

From this we could eyeball when the process (black-line) moved away from the seasonally expected value (red-line) and also the long-term trend. We then found how to strip-out the seasonal-variation to see the process performance as shown below.

So we believe we have discovered the basics for long-term trend analysis and some of the benefits appear to be:

Ability to see degree to which seasonality affects process performance 
Ability to better understand long-term trends 
Gain a clearer picture of process performance without seasonal interference 
Ability to address short-term customer issues that can be explained by seasonality.
We have some way to go yet but feel we are moving in the right direction and this is getting us a lot of success on a current project.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:29:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Candy]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/candy.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Things that make you feel good in right away aren’t always beneficial in the long run. Some things, like candy, are actually harmful in the long term. While others, like getting the high score on Space Invaders, just don’t end up mattering very much. You feel good as they are happening, but beyond that they don’t improve your life too much. A lot of things that make us feel good fall into this category. Maybe even most things.
Now this is hardly news. It’s not a novel insight into the human condition. But it is remarkably tough to remember in the moment. Human nature makes it very difficult to pass up short term gratification in favor of long term rewards. Especially when those long term rewards might require not only missing out on short term pleasure, but perhaps even opening ourselves up to short term pain. It’s one thing to understand the equation on an intellectual level, but quite another to have the discipline to put it into practice. After all, who doesn’t like candy?
So what does this have to with Six Sigma? Well, even in the best intentioned organizations, people like candy. For deployment leaders, that means there is strong temptation to dispense instant gratification to the organization. Training programs that are short, snappy, and enjoyable. Projects that deliver immediate return on investment. Minimal disruption. Quick results. Excitement. Fun. Candy.
How powerful is this temptation? Very. And enablers abound. Consider, for example, the graphic below, which appears on the homepage of SBTI. What does it suggest? That within five months (roughly), return will exceed investment. That within twelve months, return will be more than three times greater than investment. In short, it suggests candy. Which I suppose might be okay, if that’s what you are looking for. And if you are a deployment leader, it probably is what your boss is looking for.

The trouble is, just because our kids want ice cream for breakfast every morning, feeding it to them doesn’t make us good parents. The entire point of an intensive methodology like Six Sigma is to go after difficult, thorny problems. The kind that have been around for a long time. The ones with solutions that are not obvious. The ones that require time, effort, expertise, creativity, deep thought, and hard work to solve. For goodness sake – if you have a list of projects that can be easily solved and deliver return on investment within five months, what on earth are you messing around with Black Belt training for? You don’t need Six Sigma, you just need focus.
Perhaps the most concrete manifestation of this phenomenon is Six Sigma training. Those of you who have lived through Six Sigma deployments, tell me if the following conversation sounds familiar: “Black Belt training? Way too long – we can’t spare our people for four months.” How about Green Belt training? “Two months is better – but how about we do the second week online so they don’t have to travel?” Well…I guess we could… . “In fact, can we do the whole thing online?” Um, not really… . “Perfect! And we can get champions through in a single day, right?” Curricula shrink to the point of becoming series of self-evident statements spread over PowerPoint slides. Any sense of challenge and achievement disappears. The chance to modify the behavior of a class over a significant time period evaporates. But, boy, do we ever get good a delivering a snappy one-day class.
If you think I’m exaggerating, I encourage you to troll the websites of major and minor providers of Six Sigma training today. You’ll find a lot of candy. Six day, online MBB certification, anyone?
You already know where I’m heading with this. Like I said in the beginning, it is something we all realize intellectually. It’s just tough to actually do it. Our job as Six Sigma professionals can’t be to dispense candy to the organization. No more ice cream for breakfast. Even though it’s no fun for anyone involved, we need to become the bringers of organizational All Bran. We all know what to do, we just need to have the courage to do it.
(One final note: Shortly after I wrote this entry I stumbled across this article by Mark Kiemele on the Air Academy website, which makes many of the same points I make here.)
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Nail Down Your Project with PBL]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/nail_down_your_project_with_pbl.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A good project gets you the facts, the data. Talk objectively with those facts and you have a water tight case for any ‘rhetoric’! 
In my Blog Man v. Machine I talked about PBL; ’Performance Based Leadership’, basically Behavioral Science that at Bechtel they use hand in hand with DMAICT. They have an acronym called NORMS that I use when stating a case or giving difficult feedback. This has dug me out of many tricky confrontations. When giving feedback ensure it’s:

Not an Interpretation – an unbiased statement about an event or behaviour
Observable – Based on specific behaviours or events that are actually seen or heard
Reliable – 2 or more people can independently agree on events that are seen or heard
Measurable – a number can be used to describe behaviour
Specific – who, what, where, when, context, sequence
I find it especially useful for Black Belts who often have the facts and the data and it’s especially useful in providing feedback to colleagues / individuals. 
Do you have any other methods of delivering effective feedback?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:25:55 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Benchmarking &amp; Six Sigma - Umm Umm Good!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/benchmarking_amp_six_sigma_umm_umm_good.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
Benchmarking and Six Sigma go together like peanut butter and jelly.  Both are really good on their own but put them together and it is three times better.   Here’s why.
Benchmarking helps you understand how your performance rates against others.  If your performance is not in the top quartile, you may want to commission a Six Sigma project to identify and implement changes.  Once a project is identified, benchmarking results can also help define a realistic and competitive performance target to include in your project objective.   If your performance is already top quartile, you may still want to commission a Six Sigma project to "raise the bar" since it’s nice to stay one step ahead of the competition.
Once in the "Improve" phase of a Six Sigma project, best practice benchmarking can be very helpful.  What better way to find better ways than to benchmark with someone who has already figured out how to be best in class?  
To facilitate the integration of benchmarking with Six Sigma, basic benchmarking techniques and benchmarking etiquette should be a part of every black belt’s training.  This training will not only strengthen the Black Belt’s ability to identify improvements but may help them and their team realize that great ideas don’t necessarily need to come from the "inside".  There is a whole world of best practices "out there" just waiting to be shared.  All you have to do is know how to ask.  
So next time you get the opportunity, add a little benchmarking to your Six Sigma project and savor the sweet taste of success.  Umm Umm Good!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:24:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: VOC for Six Sigma Satisfaction]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voc_for_six_sigma_satisfaction.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Understanding the VOC: Six Sigma Belt Satisfaction
Often Six Sigma focuses on the voice of the customer in terms of a public consumer or end business user/department.  Yet how many times does leadership consider Six Sigma Black and Green Belts as a customer within the Six Sigma organization?
In order to successfully train and retain your change agents, a company must listen to their voice. While there are many methods to obtain feedback, a preferred method of mine is a satisfaction survey.
You can choose multiple opportunities to deploy the survey: during each phase of training, after completion of first project, on a yearly basis at a set time… the timing is a function of your organization’s culture and needs.
While I have come across some great survey templates, I still have had to tweak them for my needs. As for question content, there are several topics that I think would apply to most Six Sigma organizations.

Level of support from Process Owners, Deployment Champions, Managers, and Master Black Belts. Support can be broken down into technical, administrative, and general mentoring. Also, asking questions relating to approachability for the people mentioned above. 
Employee understanding of how Six Sigma is aligned and integrated with other quality initiatives (such as CMMI, Lean, etc.) and with company’s business plan. 
Time given to complete projects (crucial for Green Belts and others who may not being working Six Sigma projects in a full time role). 
Training/Retraining feedback and requests in terms of understanding, usability, and value. 
Understanding of audit process (if your company has one) for projects. 
Clarity of the role (i.e. the role was what was expected to be). 
Likelihood to refer the program.
Depending on the size of your organization, you may be able to drill down further and ask classification questions, such as belt type, training wave, number of projects completed, tenure with company and in role, etc.  This information may further help segregate the voice of distinct customer groups.
You may encounter a naysayer who will point to metrics where project value has been achieved and argue that a survey is not needed. After all, if you’re achieving financial targets and improving the business, then your Six Sigma agents must be happy with the work they’re doing, right?  Although business results may be achieved in the short term, this complacency mentality will cause the program to eventually fail. By listening to its inner voice, a sustainable Six Sigma initiative truly does “practice what it preaches” and only further commits to a culture of continuous improvement.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 01:00:03 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: My Secret Weapon]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/my_secret_weapon.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have a secret weapon, let me explain.
At the start of a 6-week project, I put together a detailed data collection plan to pull data from one of our legacy systems. Worked with IT and received the schedule next day, 2-weeks analysis, 2-weeks build &amp; 2-weeks test. Not good news! The project was planned to finish by the time IT came good. Did I panic? Nope, I deployed my secret weapon. Here’s how it went.
Spoke with the programmers to understand if SQL access was possible. Managed to obtain read-only access to the database for a couple of hours to have a quick look at the data. About 11pm that night I packed-up, job done, data secured.
You see my secret weapon is I am an expert in data warehousing. I believe I can get data out of just about any IT system going. So deployed this to pull the project back from Red (we sometimes say Brown) to Green. 
This is not a unique situation. The inclusive nature of our community brings people from many areas into the project team and their specialist skills &amp; experience can support the project in unexpected ways. It goes beyond the core reason for someone being included in the project team.
For example I never progressed much past drawing stick-men in art and accordingly my slide packs are too factual, so it’s great to have someone on the team with artistic talent. I have started to actively identify and use people’s other skills to support the project, the secret weapons.
I have a few other secret weapons but I can’t tell you what they are because they’re secret.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:01:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: For Example]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/for_example.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you do any sort of training, you’ve probably struggled to come up with good examples to drive a concept home. Nothing crystallizes difficult material like the perfect example to make it all real. Every train-the-trainer workshop you’ve ever been to has doubtless spent time worrying about this. And if you’ve ever been through the experience of having one of your carefully constructed examples picked apart at the front of a training room, you’ll know that it’s important to think hard in advance about examples you are going to present. Very hard. Because having your example unraveled is not pleasant, especially when a few dozen sets of eyes are watching you every step of the way.
Many trainers confuse analogies with examples. Personally, I try never to rely on analogies to prove a point. Why? Because by definition, situations that are analogous are different. Same with similes and metaphors. If you find yourself arguing some point by saying “a project is like running a race…”, I guarantee half of your audience is thinking “no, it’s not”. And they are right. Projects are not races. They aren’t fruit either, and they can’t be “low hanging” or “sweet”. And managing using Cpk is nothing like parking a car in a garage. I could go on, but I probably don’t have to. I’m sure you’ve seen all the classic PowerPoint slides just like I have. Points made this way are inherently weak because if pushed, analogies cannot possibly hold. Even a mild inquisitor can undo you. Sure, use these devices to illuminate and enrich understanding, but don’t base your arguments on them. You need a more solid foundation.
Which brings us back to examples. Examples have a weakness too, which is that they are inherently specific. For every example that fits your argument, there will be another example that does not. So selection of illustrative examples in the context of training becomes very important. Not only do your examples have to be clear, concise, and obviously linked to the concepts in your material, but they have to be persuasive enough that folks can easily generalize from the specific to the general. That’s a tall order.
If you ask most audiences, they will tell you that they want examples that are clearly related to their work. Put another way, they want examples that are almost the same as what they will have to do in real life. Fair enough, but as a trainer, it is practically impossible to deliver those kinds of examples unless you have a lot of prep time, a very homogeneous audience, and a big library of examples to work from. If you are teaching a lot of classes in a row, or if the folks in those classes are working on different things, or if you are treading new ground, forget about it. There’s not enough hours in a day to do it right!
Happily, there is a way around this problem. One so blindingly obvious that a lot of people miss it. Eliminate the examples altogether and work on projects live, in class. Make all the points you need to make in real time, using actual situations being encountered right now. Go straight from presentation of the concept to application in a real situation. Know your project portfolio like the back of your hand, and rely heavily on project reviews to back up your points. This is old news to folks who run kaizen events, where the journey from theory to application is often measured in minutes. But for whatever reason it seldom seems to happen in longer Six Sigma training courses. Too, bad because it’s an extremely powerful way to make points. Not instructor friendly at all, but much more powerful in the long run than prattling on about making cookies to explain interactions.
The downside to this approach is that, in the short term, folks in the class don’t like it very much. People want the comfort of easy, familiar examples. Skip those examples and your scores on end-of-class surveys will plummet. Be prepared for that. You might even lose a few people entirely. Possibly those already on the low end of the distribution, and probably those that aren’t doing project work like they should. But who you should be catering to anyway? And is the job to change behavior and deliver results, or make participants feel good?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Second Quarter Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/second_quarter_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Second quarter financial results have been hitting the wires the past few weeks and companies have been publicizing the benefits of Lean and Six Sigma.  Quotes from a few of the recent releases:

Ducommun Incorporated"We continue to benefit from healthy aerospace markets and the success of our Lean and Six Sigma initiatives. As a result, we are enjoying growth in new business opportunities and a broadening of our customer base.”
Regal Beloit“New products and acquisition growth fueled sales, while Lean Six Sigma and productivity projects contributed to operating margins.”
Cummins India“…as well as continuing to drive efficiencies in our operations with the use of Six Sigma…”
Ryerson"Year-over-year and sequentially, lower expenses reflected the benefit of various cost-savings initiatives, including the Integris integration and the company's Six Sigma problem-solving and continuous improvement process, which resulted in the improvement in wages, salaries, benefits, and service center operating expenses."
And we can’t forget Covance.  
As Six Sigma deployments mature, companies generally stop publicizing the financial benefits of the methodology. Some companies claim they do not even keep track of the dollars anymore!  One thing is for sure, the Six Sigma methodology delivers results.  If it didn’t why would nearly three fifths of the Fortune 500 alone continue to use it?  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:59:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Green Belt Sonic Boom]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/green_belt_sonic_boom.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA["We need to train as many Green Belts as fast as we can!"  At first this sounds like the type of fast-track deployment that will get things moving.  But training too many Green Belts too fast may fuel unnecessary resistance if not deployed properly.  Listed below are a few things you may want to consider to prevent your "sounds good" idea from turning into a Green Belt "sonic boom".

Team resources (number and expertise) need to be available to support Green Belt projects and keep the business running.  Green Belt trainees require projects and projects require team members.  Launching too many projects in a functional area at the same time could create a resource drain that may ultimately detract from the department’s ability to meet daily business needs.  If this happens, employees will get frustrated about their work falling behind and will blame Six Sigma. 
Multiple Green Belt projects focused on the same core business process need to be coordinated and worked in the right order.  A core business process may have dozens of sub-processes that need attention.  The order and timing of projects related to these sub-processes must be carefully timed and coordinated which means that Green Belts who will be working on the various sub-processes should not go to training and complete their project at the same time.   Having too many Green Belts working projects on sub-processes related to the same core process at the same time may create confusion and frustration because the inputs to each of their sub-processes are constantly being changed (by another GB project).  
"On-location" Green Belt training may initially sound like a good idea because it reduces the need for employee travel but it may also create the perfect environment for items 1 and 2 above. 
An adequate number of Master Black Belts and Black Belts need to be available to coach and mentor Green Belts.   Without this support, even enthusiastic Green Belts may lose interest.
Fast-track enterprise-wide Green Belt training can provide a sound foundation for accelerating the integration of Six Sigma throughout the organization.  Do it right and you will reap the benefits.  Do it wrong, and your version of being in the "control phase" will mostly likely consist of ’damage control’.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 12:22:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Innovation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/innovation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have struggled for sometime to appreciate the relationships between Lean Six Sigma and Innovation. Part of this is because I have never really given it much thought and also a couple of things worry me. I think I need to cover what this baggage is before talking about how I think they the two relate. But it’s a huge subject; I suspect the latest thinking is far beyond where I have got to so far.
My first concern is the incredible ability of people to innovate. Did Einstein have a secret black belt? Was Leonardo DaVinci an MBB? People are going to innovate regardless of Lean Six Sigma. Innovation happens in all industries from advertising to engineering and there are countless examples such as:

Henry Bessemer’s innovative development of the first inexpensive process for the mass production of steel 
Thomas Edison’s innovative development of commercial light bulbs from Humphry Davy’s initial invention 
Jethro Tull’s agricultural innovation of the seed drill for sowing seeds instead of being cast upon the ground.
My second concern is that I believe innovation is a very personal endeavour rather than a group endeavour. What I have seen a number of times is innovation happening like a spark, suddenly someone gets it, they have a startling flash of insight and the innovation occurs. The innovation may well happen in a group setting (e.g. brainstorm) but its still up to the individual.
Accepting the arguments that people are naturally innovative and innovation is essentially a personal endeavour where is the relationship with a team-based continuous improvement methodology? 
It would seem that Lean Six Sigma creates the conditions for targeted (customer, product &amp; process) innovation in three ways.

1. MethodologyInnovation is baked into the DMAIC approach; there is even a stage for it. So LSS starts by creating the conditions for innovation.
2. ToolsWe have a wide range of tools to support innovation. I suspect there are a number we do not use, but it’s just a matter of research to get a comprehensive list.
3. JourneyWe are on a continuous improvement journey. So each time we push the target, from 5 days to 5 hours, from 85% to 99%, from customer satisfied to customer promoter we have to innovate, there is no other option.
There are numerous other approaches, methodologies and tools you could use, but it seems LSS is built to order.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:00:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Using RSS Feeds]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/using_rss_feeds.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[At the iSixSigma Blogosphere you can subscribe to feeds that will deliver updates whenever one or all of our bloggers writes something new.  These feeds use the RSS format which you can pick up with an RSS news reader. RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication.  It is an XML-based format for content distribution that is changing the way internet users gather information.  
There are hundreds of RSS readers to choose from. I have used many readers and have found that I like Google Reader the best.  It’s easy, it’s free and I can read my feeds from my personalized iGoogle page.  
To subscribe to an RSS feed, simply click on the orange RSS button or XML icon next to your favorite blogger or category, copy the URL and past it into your reader.  You can also subscribe to "all bloggers" by clicking the XML icon below.  Now you’ll get an update when new blogs are posted.  If you prefer email, you can subscribe to the newsletter for a weekly update.  Below are several iSixSigma feeds to choose from:
All Bloggers  | Six Sigma News  | iSixSigma Discussion Forum ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:36:30 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Micro map]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/micro_map.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A couple of days ago, during a particularly boring meeting I started to doodle. But it wasn’t one of those doodles where you draw a box, then put a cross in it, then shade it, add a couple of surrounding circles, give it legs etc…. it was a doodle with purpose, I started doodling Lean Six Sigma!
It started with a SIPOC. I think the SIPOC has huge value and is somewhat a misunderstood tool. I started drawing the relationships between the SIPOC and other tools used in Define. Things just started appearing around it. I have had a go at distilling some of the areas with the “mind map” below. I have journeyed from Define to Improve on paper so far.

I hunted around the Internet to see where this has been done before so I can see what the finished article would look like. But in terms of models, most describe Lean Six Sigma from 30,000 ft or describe things like which tool to use and when, the outputs at each DMAIC stage, the roles and responsibilities required, the maturity of the deployment and the best structure and critical success factors. All these are extremely useful, but not quite what I was after.
What I imagined was an A3 size poster with all the tools shown with the inter-relationships, a picture that would “jigsaw” all the tools together. Not sure if one exists, so am pursuing my own endeavours.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:22:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Short Trip from WOW to OW]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_short_trip_from_wow_to_ow.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
A couple of weeks ago I ordered a pair of red stiletto shoes on the web.  I received them the next day (free delivery of course).  They didn’t fit quite right so I decided to send them back.  The return instructions were in the box.  I got on-line, printed a pre-paid return label &amp; dropped them off at a UPS outlet.  Two days later, I got an e-mail confirming receipt of the return and crediting my charge card.  During this same period of time, I had ordered another pair.  Again, they were delivered the next day.  They were a perfect fit. The whole shopping experience was W.O.W.  I will use this web store again and will also recommend it to my friends.
On the other hand, last night I stopped by a store to pick up a few things.  Seems like everything was lined up for a W.O.W. experience.  I promptly found the products I needed, they were priced appropriately and there was no one in the checkout line.  But as I approached the cashier, the scowl on her face was enough to trigger the music from JAWS to start playing in the back of my mind (dun-dun dun-dun dun-dun).  She provided a fast efficient transaction but her unpleasant disposition turned a possible WOW into an OW.  I don’t think I’ll stop by there again.
So what does all this have to do with Six Sigma?  Everything.  Improving processes and bringing value to the bottom line is really good stuff.   But let’s not forget that being Six Sigma also means figuring out how to make your customers feel like it is all about them.  Only then will your Six Sigma GPS help you find a way to "Walk on the W.O.W. Side."  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:23:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Walk On The W.O.W. Side &quot;With Value&quot;]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/walk_on_the_wow_side_with_value.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Over the past two weeks we talked about how Six Sigma can help organizations accomplish "What’s Needed" and the significance of being "On Time".  But none of this matters much if it is not done "With Value".  
Value - wartosc - der Wert - valor . . . Whether said in English, Polish, German or Spanish, there is one thing that these words have in common and that is all customers want it.  What is value?  It is "that quality of anything which renders it desirable or useful".
The "With Value" component of W.O.W. is sometimes the hardest to quantify because it is made up of both cost and a somewhat more intangible component - customer satisfaction (or as I like to call it customer delight).  This intangible component is all about how the customer ’feels’ about your product or service.  Identifying and perfecting the aspects of your product or process that makes customers ’feel good’ doesn’t just happen.  It requires a methodical approach; one that can be shaped by applying Six Sigma to all aspects of the "With Value" component of W.O.W.  By finding new and innovative ways to eliminate defects, variance and waste, Six Sigma can help keep cost low.  By always focusing on the Voice of the Customer, customer delight is kept at the forefront.  
The "With Value" component completes the formula for W.O.W. as follows:
W.O.W. = (What’s Needed) x (On Time) x (With Value)
Rate each component from 0 to 1 and you can find out where you stand on your Customer’s "Wow-o-meter".   Sounds simple but scoring a 1 in any of the three categories is tough.  What does it take to score a 1?

What’s Needed:  Consistently providing what the customer wants AND anticipating their future needs. 
On Time:  Consistently providing your product or service when promised, where promised and at the best-in-class cycle time. 
With Value:  Consistently assuring that cost to the customer reflects relative worth AND intangible characteristics are continuously honed to delight the customer (i.e. providing an unexpected satisfaction booster).

By effectively applying Six Sigma tools and methods, companies can optimize the three elements of W.O.W.  And once they do, they can take their customers for a "Walk on the W.O.W. Side".
Had any W.O.W. experiences lately?  Share them here and let the world know how it feels to be a customer who has recently experienced a walk on the W.O.W. side!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 08:46:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Voice of Process Two]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voice_of_process_two.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
 Buy this Cox-Box cartoon strip on a mug!
The Cox-Box is Copyright © 2000-2007 iSixSigma LLC and Gary P. Cox – All Rights ReservedReproduction Without Permission Is Prohibited – Request Permission]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gary P. Cox]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 22:15:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: &quot;On Time&quot; for Your Walk on the W.O.W. Side]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/on_time_for_your_walk_on_the_wow_side.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last week we talked about how Six Sigma can help organizations accomplish "What’s Needed".  Without this element, nothing else really matters because being "On Time" with the wrong thing won’t "wow" anyone.  
This week we are exploring the significance of being "On Time".  Whether it is the delivery of a product or service or keeping inventory at the right level, "On Time" is a critical element of W.O.W.
Six Sigma can help deliver "On Time" in two basic ways.  First, by applying the methodology and tools to understand and analyze the process, non-value steps, bottlenecks and rework can be identified and eliminated (or at least minimized).  This will result in a reduced cycle time to deliver.  But that’s not enough to "wow" the customer if it cannot be done consistently.  Once an expectation for delivery of a product or service has been set, it must be consistently met or else you might find yourself with the fastest delivery to no-one.  So how can Six Sigma help?  Use the methodology and tools to analyze and reduce the variation in cycle time so that now you can consistently deliver "On Time".   Master the combination of both of these elements and you’ve earned your company part 2 of a ticket to walk on the W.O.W side.  
Join me again next week as we continue our walk "With Value."]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:55:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Back with three questions]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/back_with_three_questions.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Please pardon me for ignoring iSixSigma for the last two months. Life took over, and I did not have time to blog. This is a short post consisting of three questions. 

Would anyone comment on the range of cycle times for DMAIC black belt and green belt projects? 
At your companies, is mastery of a set of tools necessary for a green belt to be certified? 
Does your company tie certification of green belts and black belts to a minimum number of projects with demonstrable hard dollar or soft dollar savings? If you know of survey data covering these questions, let me know. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:43:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: &quot;What's Needed&quot; to Walk on the W.O.W. Side]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whats_needed_to_walk_on_the_wow_side.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In today’s world, new technology, changing customer expectations and the competitive market are constantly redefining "What’s Needed".  Any company with hopes of competing must constantly reshape their processes and products to meet these changing needs.  Fortunately, Six Sigma is there to help accomplish this by:

Providing a systematic approach to continuously improve and redesign processes and products 
Keeping the Voice of the Customer at the forefront of everything that is done 
Developing measurement systems to proactively identify needed changes and improvements 
Creating opportunities for employees to learn new skills and tools and to have a say in the Voice of the Process 
Shaping a culture that applies data, teamwork and creativity to find new and innovative ways to bring value to the customer and to the business 
Bringing the benefits of all these things to the bottom line
So take a close look at how your company has deployed Six Sigma.  If it is integrated and synchronized with key aspects of running the business, chances are good that it is helping your organization to accomplish "What’s Needed".  If not, don’t be surprised if your  W.O.W. turns into OW!
Join me again next week and we’ll explore how being "On Time" can help you "Take a Walk on the W.O.W. Side."

 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:30:18 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Take a Walk on the W.O.W. Side!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/take_a_walk_on_the_wow_side.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Everyone is focused on What’s Needed.
Done On Time is part of what must be heeded.
Use Six Sigma to make it slick.
Delivered With Value will seal the trick.
She said hey babe, take a walk on the W.O.W. side.
Said hey honey, take a walk on the W.O.W. side.
And the Belts say Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo Doooooooo!
Join me over the next few weeks as we explore how Six Sigma can help your organization "Take a Walk on the W.O.W. Side."  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 03:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Voice of Process]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voice_of_process.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
 Buy this Cox-Box cartoon strip on a mug!
The Cox-Box is Copyright © 2000-2007 iSixSigma LLC and Gary P. Cox – All Rights ReservedReproduction Without Permission Is Prohibited – Request Permission]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gary P. Cox]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:15:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Benefit Pit-falls]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/benefit_pit_falls.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One of the foundations of Lean Six Sigma is its clear link to benefits. Take a look at some of the quoted benefits from the Lean Six Sigma behemoths:

GE saved $12 billion over five years and added $1 to its earnings per share
Honeywell (AlliedSignal) recorded more than $800 million in savings
Six Sigma reportedly saved Motorola $15 billion over the last 11 years
Unfortunately our deployment is by no means as mature; we aspire to reach these levels. Along our journey we have learned just how important it is to get the benefits story right. Here are some of the pit-falls encountered and may be of assistance.
Tangible means financial?I see people using of the terms tangible and financial interchangeably based on the idea that financial benefits are the only tangible and anything else is intangible. We have a simple rule; if you can measure it it’s tangible otherwise it’s intangible. Simple as that. So for example you can have for tangible benefits covering:

Customer - e.g. Customer satisfaction
Financial - e.g. Revenue growth
Process -  e.g.Product defects
People - e.g. Increased pay
You’ve got to grab the benefitsWe sometimes find we have multiple projects working on a process some being Lean Six Sigma and some not. If the process improves which project bags the benefits? We look to get an agreement between the various projects on the allocations. Looking forward we hope to become more sophisticated based on the Y=f(X) approach and the X’s can always be other improvement projects.
You’ve got to bank the benefitsAgain sounds simple but I have found not all tangible benefits translate into Business Benefits. 
For example removing non-value activities in a process makes it more efficient. But if you don’t make use of that improvement by for example increasing the volume or redeploying people to other areas then you haven’t achieved a business benefit.
Another example is we sometimes run DMA projects where we do rapid analysis down to root-cause and identify the benefits available. We don’t do so many of these now as we realised the improvements were not sticking and you can’t achieve a Business Benefit until you have delivered the improvement 
These are a few examples of the pit-falls encountered. What is important is making sure every single project can clearly define and manage its Business Benefits.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:43:41 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Is Six Sigma Really the Baaaaaaad Boy?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/is_six_sigma_really_the_baaaaaaad_boy.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lately, there has been a lot of talk about Six Sigma.  Believers tout stories of business success, unprecedented customer satisfaction and countless dollars to the bottom line. Naysayers point to near business ruin and cultural impacts that stifle innovation and growth.  Whether you are an avid believer or a practicing naysayer there is one thing that everyone seems to agree on - Six Sigma is a powerful methodology.  So the question remains: Is Six Sigma really the bad boy . . . or the scapegoat?
In pondering the answer to this question, the first challenge presents itself when asked to define Six Sigma.  Traditionalists often speak of Six Sigma as an improvement methodology created by Motorola more than 20 years ago or define it as 3.4 DPMO (defects per million opportunities).  To me, that is sort of like describing today’s car by referring to an early Model T Ford.  Yeah, it is still a car but it is nothing like the car of today by any stretch of the imagination.  Over the past 20 years, Six Sigma has evolved and reshaped itself many times over.  It is this "megamorphosis" that has allowed it to continue to bring value to those who know how to wield its power.
So what is today’s definition of Six Sigma?  It is a powerful business methodology that helps companies transform their work environment into one where collaborative teams routinely work across the total value chain to identify new and innovative ways to meet changing customer expectations.  Whew!  Sounds like a bunch of ’wugga" words at first glance but fittingly serves as a high level definition for the new and improved Six Sigma of the 21st century.  Six Sigma today does not only consist of a DMAIC, Lean and DFSS toolbox but also includes aspects of change management, innovative thinking, team dynamics and other skills that must be mastered in order to effectively use the toolbox.  In addition, the synchronization of Six Sigma with strategic objectives, goals, leadership development, workforce planning, incentives and communication creates a powerful engine that drives organizational transformation.   But with this power comes the responsibility to define what you want to transform your organization into.  Left undefined, you might find yourself the victim of transformation rather than the shaper.
Before embarking on any transformational journey, an organization’s leadership must define a vision and the behaviors needed to achieve and sustain that vision.  Once defined, a Six Sigma deployment strategy can be shaped to serve as the enabler.  Many times the vision may be clear but the organization has not thought about the behaviors needed to support the vision.  Other times, a single threaded vision may drive an organization to use Six Sigma to become "cost focused" or "defect reduction focused" at the expense of growth or innovation.  Is Six Sigma to blame for this?  Some say yes because it served as the pathway to get there.   But the reality is just that - it is only a pathway.   The destination was defined (whether knowingly or not) by leadership and Six Sigma was the enabler - and a powerful one at that.
As such, leaders must make sure that Six Sigma does not evolve into a life of its own but maintains its rightful place as a pathway to achieving the company’s vision.   As a company’s vision and strategy is reshaped to satisfy ever changing markets and customers, Six Sigma must also reshape itself to complement these changes.  It is this ability to constantly synchronize Six Sigma with a company’s vision that distinguishes true Six Sigma companies from those that are just "doing it".
Six Sigma . . . bad boy or scapegoat?  You make the call.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:12:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma - A Whole New Language]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_a_whole_new_language.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently stepped into the elevator at our corporate office with a newly trained Green Belt.  It was lunch time and the elevator was crowded.  As the doors closed the Green Belt, recognizing who I was, remarked with pride, "I just finished the SIPOC on my project!"  A voice in the front immediately said, "SIPOC . . . What’s a SIPOC?"  Before I could start my 15 second elevator response a voice from the back shouted, "SIPOC - That’s a giant ogre with one eye in the middle of its forehead!"  As I, as well as the rest of the elevator crowd broke out in laughter it reminded me of why I love my job as a Six Sigma leader . . .  it’s just way too much fun!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 07:00:18 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: How Six Sigma works in the hotel industry]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/how_six_sigma_works_in_the_hotel_industry.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[John Corr’s comment (9 March 2007) in Andrew Downard’s Six Sigma Sucks blog (1 August 2006) showed the lack of understanding of how Six Sigma is applied in the service industry. While preaching a certain methodology it’s good to do some research first. A great example of how Starwood does continuous improvement in its hotels:
Simple problems- Starwood uses a simple methodology in its ’Starwood Cares’ program to tackle simple straighforward problems. Projects like this have a short deployment time, ranging from days to within a week.
Less simple problems- use Innovation Transfer (projects transferred from successful projects in other hotels) or Quick Hits (projects for simpler issues). The effort and deployment time of these methods are a fraction from a DMAIC project.
Complex problems- use DMAIC!!
While the first two methods could be known as Lean, the idea is to use different methods to tackle different issues so as not to get the Six Sigma resources spread over too thinly. At project selection stage, entries are reviewed and asked- ‘do we need Six Sigma for this project?’ If the answer is ‘no’ then the simpler methodology is used. Also in the service industry, there’s also a need to enhance customer satisfaction and service values, not just pure financial benefits. In the service industry, service quality and sales are related anyway, though in deferred time frame. Increase in quality of service does not normally impact on the profit and loss account in 1-2 months time but statistics show that great customer satisfaction index normally equals increased returning guests and increased sales within a slightly longer time.
Interesting blog there, Andrew, you’ve got comments right up to a year later. I’ve meant to put this in the comment box but ran out of word space.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Vincent Chin]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:55:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: ANOVA]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/anova.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my on-going journey to master the tools &amp; techniques of Lean Sigma I have been reviewing the materials on ANOVA. How useful this has been, it has really moved me on a level.
ANOVA comes across in training as a very useful tool and Tukey’s pairwise comparison really hits the spot. However in our business with samples of skewed non-normal distributions with unequal variance, I infrequently meet the assumptions for use, “Samples must be normally distributed and of equal variance” and swap over to Mood’s Median Test. 
So when I reviewed this topic in my own time I was surprised to read in Principles of Applied Statistics that “in practise the normality and equal variance assumptions are not important” I was intrigued. Not having a statistical background I had always assumed these were fixed assumptions and used the tools accordingly. Could it be that I had misunderstood the theory? What about the other statistical tests based on the normal distribution e.g. 1-sample t-test, 2-sample t-test, paired t-test and F-test for equal variance, could these be used as well?
I started doing some empirical tests in Minitab. Useful research but did not answer the questions. I then reread my collection of Six Sigma books. These gave differing and sometimes vague advice on how to handle hypothesis tests on non-normal &amp; unequal variance samples. From this I got two things, first I needed to look outside of my “Universe” to find an information source I could trust, second I needed to be more specific in my questions. So I framed the questions:

To what degree does non-normality impact the hypothesis test? 
To what degree does unequal variance impact the hypothesis test?
To find an information source I could trust I went to the library and borrowed the biggest academic book on statistics I could find, Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. It went in-depth in the areas I was looking for guidance.
In terms of output I wanted to produce a simple table of practical advice that could be used. Here is what it looks like now, still working on it and going through the theory.




Hypothesis Test
 Non-normal Data
Unequal Variance

1-sample t-test
Robust test except against outliers or strongly skewed data. Samples less than 15 - must have normal data, less than 40 - no outliers or strongly skewed and greater than 40 - no outliers but can be skewed
 No significant impact

2-sample t-test
 In research
 In research

Paired t-test
In research
In research

F-test
Do not run test, use Levene’s test
In research

ANOVA
In research
Largest standard deviation should be less than twice smallest standard deviation
This is the start of the research and joins the growing body of knowledge I am building in the subject. What it does is provoke the next set of questions, things like what is the risk of using the results, how does sample size impact on confidence intervals in these situations, what other situations should be considered e.g. outliers &amp; different distributions and when should non-parametric tests be used.
Anyone out there with the answers?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 03:41:38 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Spirit of the Archetype]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_spirit_of_the_archetype.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have never personally sewn, but I’ve heard that one of the most difficult aspects of sewing is deciphering the pattern and following its directions. I learned this, and many more important lessons, from observing my mother, who made dresses for my sister when I was a child. Looking back, whoever created these patterns for a simple dress must have thought they were creating a blueprint for rocket scientists. 
With sewing, patterns are essential; all of the pieces need to be the "right" size in order to fit them together. In today’s times patterns are produced in mass quantities and you can find a "standardized" pattern for anything you might want to sew. However, back in the day, patterns were not so readily available so folks were relegated to taking apart old clothes and using the pieces as a pattern to reproduce a copy with new cloth.   Over time, the original pattern suffered from errors, such as over snipping the sleeves or under snipping the hem,  leaving an observable difference from the "standard".  The further removed from the original pattern, the less the outcome resembled the blueprint. 
So what does sewing patterns have to do with Six Sigma?   During my many years of continuous improvement experience, I have learned from many good teachers who demonstrated methodological expertise and the startling ability to relate the philosophical to most any functional application. It is very tempting to live off this teaching and rely on it to energize my organization without ever returning to the source. I could easily be successful doing so without ever personally studying any of the original works of Deming, Shewhart, Juran, Shingo, etc. But without such study, my understanding of the methodology and the concept of Six Sigma that is transferred to anyone who learns from me will eventually get farther and farther away from the original ideas, potentially giving rise to "the blind leading the blind" syndrome.
Take advantage of the fact that you don’t have to use an old worn out coat as a pattern for a new one. Go to the source and get the original blueprint. Preserve the spirit of the archetype, you’ll be a better Black Belt and nobody will make fun of your clothes.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[W. Michael McBride]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:01:14 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Most Wanted List # 1]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_most_wanted_list__1.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[With "The Discreditor" ranking a strong #5, "The Busybody" boasting the #4 spot, "The Egomaniac" landing #3, and the "The Whiner" grabbing #2, it’s hard to imagine who could possibly hold the #1 spot.  Well ponder it no more, because this week it’s right here on the Blogosphere.  The #1 position on the Six Sigma Most Wanted List of naysayers is held by none other than "The Charlatan".
Mode of Operation (MO):  This Naysayer may not look or sound like a Naysayer at all.   That’s what makes them so dangerous.  In public, they know how to say and do all the right things.  But behind the scenes you will find a different approach.  Only those close to this naysayer knows the truth which gives the Charlatan free reign to sabotage at will.  You won’t even know it happened until it’s too late.  And when it does happen, it is so masterfully choreographed that the Charlatan emerges unscathed.
Probability of existing without being detected:   High - All outward signs tend to indicate that this naysayer is on board.  Their ability to don their invisibility cloak when in their naysayer mode lets them move about the company virtually undetected.
Probability of having daily occurring nayisms:  High - This naysayer must work behind the scenes on a daily basis to keep their cover.  Their subtle yet intentional moves include commissioning projects with pre-defined solutions or reducing cost and shaping a Six Sigma project around it to claim savings.  Both of these approaches are not easily discovered by an outsider.  From the outside looking in, the Charlatan looks pretty engaged.  After all, they are completing projects and reducing cost.  For the moment, it might look good but without applying the Six Sigma tools, it is likely that the problems really didn’t go away.  They just manifested themselves somewhere else.
Probability that their nayisms will have negative long-term ramifications:  High -  Because this naysayer looks like they are going through the motions, and achieving short term ’results’, they are not often challenged by people outside of their group or by their superiors.   But people in the department are not so easily fooled.  They can see what is going on and most folks don’t like it.   Because of the way things are done, employees in the department do not view Six Sigma projects as a new approach but as the same old stuff reshaped to look like something else.  Without an opportunity to really experience the power of a true Six Sigma project, they are probably destined to become the next generation of naysayers.
Overall Threat Level:  HIGH +  (Ranked using Gianna’s proprietary naysayer scale)
Actions to Deal with Naysayer #1:   It is the difficulty in dealing with this naysayer that puts them at the top of the Six Sigma Most Wanted list of naysayers.  These naysayers are slick as snot.  In some instances they may be in leadership roles making them even less approachable by the everyday Joe.  Are there any options?   Here’s what I say . . .  
Approach this naysayer with caution and do not try to take them on by yourself.  You will need a cadre of high powered supporters helping you through this one.  First, evaluate the Charlatan’s sphere of influence and determine if they are worth the time and effort to approach.  If not, move on.  Your organization may be better served with you spending your time doing something else.  If you must get this naysayer turned around, here are a couple of suggestions:  
Try to recruit a strong Black Belt from "the inside" of this naysayer’s department.  An insider may be more effective at squelching ’fake’ projects before they are ever launched and possibly working a real project that can show others how Six Sigma really works.  If you can identify some projects in another department that used Six Sigma methods to solve a problem similar to those experienced by the Charlatan’s department,  then highlight these projects while keeping any ’fake’ projects out of the limelight.
You might try to identify a large cross-functional project that can be co-championed by the Charlatan and a top leader in the company who is a Six Sigma enthusiast.  The Charlatan will need to straighten up a bit to work with this leader or risk discovery by an outsider who may be more powerful or influential in the company.  
If all efforts fail, don’t get too discombobulated.  Keep building on the things that work well and work around the roadblocks and potholes.  Focus your time and effort on things that you can accomplish.  The important thing is to not give up.  Keep sharing your passion for achieving excellence through Six Sigma with everyone around you.   No matter how difficult or how stubborn or even how manipulative your toughest naysayer may be, in the end they will just fade away.  And it will be the person with vision, passion and perseverance that will be remembered for making a real difference.  And that person could be you.
After two years of talking about naysayers I think that I’m ready to have some fun with something else.  So tune in next week and find out what I’ll be up to right here on the iSixSigma Blogosphere.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:48:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Your office is out there…! (MBWA for desk-bound managers)]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/your_office_is_out_there_mbwa_for_desk_bound_managers.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I first joined the hotel industry as the finance guy, I was literally glued to my desk. Sure, I would attend all the necessary office meetings and staff events but my mind was solely ‘back to work’. Bipan the General Manager would come by my office and reminded me very often, “Hey, Mr. Finance Manager- your office is out there..!”. I chuckled at the thought of my office being ‘out there’- 39 acres of rainforest with a few major species of birds, monkeys and other wildlife thrown in. Not forgetting the family of otters that swam in every night. 
Of course, being ’out there’ actually means getting out of the office and spending some time on the ‘shop floor’ with the objective of interacting with customers and employees; and knowing the field. It is also Management by Wandering Around (MBWA), invented by Hewlett-Packard sometime in the 1970s, made famous by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman as one of the ‘Eight Basics’ in their book In Search of Excellence in 1982. Considered old school by some, MWBA is still very much practiced especially in the hotel industry; in fact MWBA is an integral part of hotel culture- top management must have that direct informal communication line with the information source- customers and employees. It’s part of the job. Besides communication it’s also important to get a feel of what’s going on out there.
The true technique to effective MWBA is not wandering for wandering’s sake but wandering with a few key objectives in mind and trying to achieve those objectives. Wandering without a purpose is considered unofficial down-time where nothing is achieved. Points to consider for an effective walkabout:
Make up your mindList down, either mentally or jotting down, the objective(s) of my shop floor bout before heading out. What’s the time now, where are the ‘action’ areas? Where are my Six Sigma project areas? Where are the hotel guests hanging out now? Are there any issues at the back-of-the house 1 which need to be look at?
Stay sharp, stay relaxedStop thinking about that spreadsheet on the computer screen back at the office. If I’ll need to complete that report, I’ll need to complete it then, and stop thinking about leaving my desk. Stay relaxed so that employees around me don’t feel that it’s an inspection (even though it is at times). Get to know at least one employee on a personal basis. Recognize employees who are doing it right. Be prepared to get engage with hotel guests during peak hours; be approachable and proactive. It’s OK to carry a bag or two- I’m representing my company; I’ll need to tell the guest implicitly senior management really cares for him/ her. Keep an eye out for shortfall in brand standards on the floor.
Know the (process) flowKnow as much as possible the process flow, procedures and brand standards of the area I’m visiting. It doesn’t mean I will need to chalk up hours of reading manuals but since I’m doing a situational watch it’s good to observe the floor action and relate it back to the process, making my wandering a good education process. I’ll also need to create the impact amongst employees that I know the shop floor, being mindful that I’m a walking reference desk, so I’m ready to be approached and engaged by customers or employees.
Check on project areasIt makes sense to ‘inspect’ the areas which are relevant to the Six Sigma projects I’m running. If I’m running a project on room category up selling at the hotel reception area, I’ll head for the hotel reception to observe how the room up selling is carried out during guest check-in, peak and off-peak. When I was heading a project on laundry chemicals in the laundry department, I visited the laundry floor with the laundry manager when everybody had gone home, to check the poundage of soiled sheets collected during the late evening.
Time-keepingKeeping track of time is important- it’s unproductive to spend hours wandering and engaging people while neglecting my key areas of responsibilities which I need to address on a daily basis. The idea is to engage effectively and then move on. I’ll keep my wandering ‘tight’ so that I can walk the same areas at a different time of the day. 
Kill the incidentsThere is essentially a difference between an incident and a problem. Incidents are short interruptions to a service or shortfall in service quality, for instance failure of a lunch order to arrive within a comfortable timeframe. Incidents could be one-off, but recurring similar incidents indicate there’s a problem at hand. If the food is late for every given order, then there’s a problem at hand. I’ll read the social style of the customer and do damage recovery if necessary because business needs to go on. I’ll need to be mindful about tackling problems in full public view which I can’t solve on the spot- be honest about it and promise to revert within reasonable time. Incidents can be solved on the spot or within a very short time cycle but problems need more analysis and time to determine the root cause. Problems will need to be addressed in the next morning’s briefing and possibly materialize into projects.
In the previous company which I worked for MBWA is not known as a separate concept but has its elements infused with other organizational practices. Which means if I flipped through the employee's pocket book I would find MBWA values there but called under different titles. It is effective when incidents can be solved; problems properly followed through. 
1 Back-of-the house- a term used in the hotel industry to describe the ‘employee areas’ and back-end support functions such as the administrative office, employee cafeteria, engineering office and so on.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Vincent Chin]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2007 12:29:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Documentation Dilemma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/documentation_dilemma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[“Dilemma” is term properly reserved to describe a situation in which we must choose between two more-or-less equally unpleasant alternatives. This pretty much sums up how most organizations feel about documentation for Six Sigma projects.
On the one hand, there is always an organizational craving (note that I am specifically avoiding the term “need” here) for templates, documents, forms, and metrics that can feed the dreaded “roll-up” of information. These roll-ups often result in dashboards or scorecards that are supposed to be used to make decisions and steer a program.
On the other hand, there are Black Belts and their teams who are probably already working 16 hour days and still not finding enough hours to get everything done. They are digging deeply into problems and opportunities using techniques and tools they have been trained to use at great expense to the organization. They see documentation mostly as a distraction (“non-value-added work,” they will knowingly mutter) and something that takes away from their more important tasks.
A dilemma indeed. On the surface of it, the organization has to choose between having limited visibility and little information on which to base decisions, or saddling the “best and brightest” with a lot of busy work filling out incredibly repetitive templates and forms. Neither alternative is palatable.
In a sense, the answer is simple: strike a balance. But from what I’ve seen, finding that balance is very tricky, and organizations rarely get it right.
Part of the problem is that often the higher one goes in a company, the more simple and summarized information becomes. This phenomenon drives a pyramid of information collection in which many people at the bottom scramble to produce information and reports in a pre-determined format at whatever frequency is seen as “necessary” to a small audience at the top. The “roll-ups” thus produced containing a surprisingly small amount of information which may or may not accurately reflect what is actually going on. This is almost certainly not what the folks at the top want to have happen, but it’s usually what does happen.
At the other end, Black Belts and template designers often prefer to provide information that is easy to provide, rather than what is useful. Automated software “solutions” are terrible for this, enabling the tendency rather than reversing it. For example, many electronic dashboards ask users to enter project phases so they can show a roll-up of, for example, what percentage of projects are currently in the “improve phase.” This is what I like to call a “feel good” metric; it doesn’t really mean anything, so the presenter can spin it any way they want to make the audience feel good. Number of projects in the improve phase going up this month? Great! We love improvements! Number of projects in the improve phase going down this month? Great! More project proceeding towards completion! I can’t imagine a scenario in which we could make a decision based on a metric like this, but it makes us feel good to see it displayed (in color) on a dashboard. Trouble is, it takes a huge number of people building and maintaining projects plans, then doing data entry on a repeated basis, to generate the dashboard. It’s a huge investment of time just to make a few people feel good.
And no small part of the problem are the template-and-form crowd (which includes me, by the way). Buy a few drinks for your table at any Six Sigma conference and you’ll soon hear a litany of complaints about being forced to re-format templates so they are in the “right” font, or fit on two pages instead of three, or meet any number of other arbitrary requirements. Black Belts hate doing all this, and the people who have to provide the roll-ups hate it when Black Belts don’t do it.
So what to do about all the dilemma? Like I said above, the answer is simple: find the right balance. Design project tracking processes to be minimal in terms of the work required. Ask only for information that will inform decisions at some level. Provide a mechanism to flag problems and exceptions when they arise rather than monitoring whatever is convenient to monitor. Roll-up where you need to roll-up, but don’t assume the recipients of that rolled-up  information are incapable of understanding complicated relationships between variables and non-intuitive conclusions. In short, treat documentation like a process, strive to manage the inputs and outputs, and keep your Lean and Six Sigma hats on when you do so. Easy to say, very hard to do it right. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Most Wanted List # 2]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_most_wanted_list__2.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[With "The Discreditor" ranking a strong #5, "The Busybody" boasting the #4 spot, and "The Egomaniac" landing #3,  our countdown of the Six Sigma Most Wanted List of naysayers continues this week with # 2 - "The Whiner".
Mode of Operation (MO):  This Naysayer complains about everything including Six Sigma.  Six Sigma training is too hard or takes too long or is not long enough.  Projects take too long to complete.  There aren’t enough resources; there is too much work.  Everything is a problem.  Yada yada yada. 
Probability of existing without being detected:   Low - This naysayer’s constant whining about Six Sigma (as well as everything else) vibrates throughout the department like a yodel in the Alps.  Everyone knows exactly how this naysayer feels about Six Sigma.
Probability of having daily occurring nayisms:  HIGH - Whining about Six Sigma occurs on a daily basis if not more often.  Actually, it never lets up.  It happens in meetings, at lunch, at the water cooler, in the carpool and most probably even at home (their dog is probably a naybarker)
Probability that their nayisms will have negative long-term ramifications:  HIGH -  These naysayers can have a far reaching impact because most of them are expert whiners meaning they have perfected their whining to get maximum attention and results.  If they hold a leadership position their impact is even greater.  It will be hard if not impossible to get this naysayer turned around before widespread damage occurs. 
Overall Threat Level:  HIGH  (Ranked using Gianna’s proprietary naysayer scale)
Actions to Deal with Naysayer #2:   Here’s what I say . . .  Approach this naysayer with open ears and let them download all of their Six Sigma related concerns.  Examine the concerns to identify common themes or issues (time constraints, resources, understanding, etc.)  If possible, offer alternatives that may help address some of the issues like changing training dates to accommodate special requests or showing examples where projects have helped effectively deal with time and resource constraints.  Sometimes even a small concession or example is enough to allow some constructive dialog that may help reduce this naysayers decibel level.  
If the naysayr is in a leadership role, invite him or her to kick-off a training class.  Offer to help prepare their speech.  The ’public’ show of required support may help dampen the impact of their negative chatter back at the office.
If all else fails, see if you can isolate them so that they can do less harm.  Look for opportunities to engage people around them in hope that knowledge can help shield the rest of the organization from the constant naysaying.
Although most people are aware of this naysayers propensity to whine about everything, don’t underestimate the damage that can be done if this naysayer is not closely monitored.  Given the right circumstances, they could spark a nayism pandemic that can leave your deployment dead in its tracks.
Tune in next week to find out who holds the #1 spot on the Six Sigma Most Wanted list of naysayers.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2007 11:49:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: “AND SOME THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN, WERE LOST”. JRR Tolkien]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/and_some_things_that_should_not_have_been_forgotten_were_lost_jrr_tolkien.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have recently gone through ’Train The Trainer’ for Green Belt. I discovered on the training some excellent tools I had not been using, or have just plain forgotten about.  
Over the next few Blogs I would like to talk about ’Lost Tools’ and ask why they are not being used, and the impact on not using them, both on the Improvement Project and on the business.
Lost Tools #1 ’The Project Criteria Check List’
A well conceived business case is the key to project success. But how many projects have you seen or even been given, that do not meet the criteria that was taught to us in week 1 of Black Belt training? The checklist which should be in all the Six Sigma Training material reads something like this:
•         Are the goals of the project clear and realistic at this stage?
•         Does this problem affect our ability to successfully deliver our key business objectives?
•         Does this problem stem from an on-going, high volume process?
•         Is this process measurable?
•         Is this problem creating defects?
•         Can we estimate the potential business benefits in cash?
•         Will this project lead to improvements with little or no capital?
•         Can this project be completed in 4 to 6 months?
•         Does the process owner approve and support this project?
•         Is the scope of the project clear?
If the answer is No to any of these, and you still take the project forwards, it will spell trouble, big trouble downstream. I’ve been there, most Black Belts have.
If the answer is YES to all the criteria above, I submit that all you need is a good understanding of the tools to deliver great success within the business. 
But do all your projects tick all these boxes, all the time? In the transactional world, my world, I would be surprised. 
What do we do?

We now have a deployment that needs to be fuelled with savings.
We need to justify our own existence, and we may not have any text book process improvement projects out there.
“Get in Lean! Call it a Lean project” comes the cry.
But does every proposed business case that is not a DMAIC project fall into the Lean bucket?
Proposed Solution

Strong Six Sigma leadership on quality control for potential initiatives, UP FRONT. 
Someone who is not scared to say NO to the bosses.
Someone who can decipher a good business case from a bad one.
I feel like I am stating the obvious here, but the obvious is so often overlooked.
What does your deployment do to stop ’dodgy’ business cases getting through? Do you have a different / better list of criteria to check your business cases? What other ’lost tools’ can you think of?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 08:37:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Most Wanted List # 3]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_most_wanted_list__3.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[With "The Discreditor" ranking a strong #5 and "The Busybody" boasting the #4 spot, this week, our countdown of the Six Sigma Most Wanted List of naysayers continues with # 3 - "The Egomaniac".
Mode of Operation (MO):  This Naysayer has been improving things for years and has fixed everything there is to fix.  They don’t need Six Sigma but are sure that other departments can benefit from it.  If, by chance, someone completed a successful project in their area, it was probably something they were going to do anyways. 
Probability of existing without being detected:   MEDIUM - This naysayer is sometimes hard to spot because they are advocates of Six Sigma for departments other than their own.  If they weren’t already sooooo excellent, they would use it too.  Look for this naysayer on the sidelines - cheering others on.  They have yet to figure out that Six Sigma is not a spectator sport.
Probability of having daily occurring nayisms:  MEDIUM - Although they may agree to participate on teams from other departments, their decline to use Six Sigma to improve their own processes sends a constant message of "no habla Six Sigma" throughout the department.
Probability that their nayisms will have negative long-term ramifications:  MEDIUM -  This naysayer’s mode of self  "non-participation" will clearly impact the department in the long run.  But since they support other departments using the methodology, they have at least left the door open for employees around them to learn by team participation.  Through good team experiences, these team members may propagate a bottom-up movement of their own thereby damping the overall effect from this naysayer. 
Overall Threat Level:  Strong MEDIUM  (Ranked using Gianna’s proprietary naysayer scale)
Actions to Deal with Naysayer #3:  Here’s what I say . . .  The best weapon to effectively deal with the Egomaniac is time.  While this naysayer is wallowing in a sea of complacency, the surrounding departments are learning new tools and new approaches that are improving their overall performance.  Relatively speaking, the naysayer is losing ground because without the new skills, they can’t keep up with their peer departments.  Pretty soon, this department will become the "bottleneck" or may even become the "defect".   (Sounds like a burning platform for Six Sigma is in the making).
If you can’t wait them out, try to identify some peer groups or competitors who are also known for their excellent performance and have effectively used Six Sigma to take them to the next level of excellence.  This may help re-shape Six Sigma as a method for "raising the bar" rather than fixing a problem which may have more appeal to the Egomaniac.
Join me again next week as the #2 spot on the Six Sigma Most Wanted List of naysayers is unveiled.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2007 14:43:42 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Next Generation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_next_generation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From Gauss defining the normal distribution to Galton designing his theories on correlation to Onho developing the Toyota Production system, we are proud of our rich heritage and the number &amp; variety of sources that have come together to create the Lean Six Sigma model.
So it is encouraging to see what may be an example of the next generation of methodology. I was doing a bit of research on Business Process Management and found the BPMG web site. This covered the 8 Omega framework which included:

The 8-step DADVIICI approach
Six defined roles, and the skills and responsibilities assigned to each of these roles
Four dimensions (Strategy, People, Process, Systems) of organizational alignment that must be addressed to achieve excellence
Education, training and skill building spanning the entire 8 Omega performance model

Sounds an exciting break-through innovation and I wondered if anyone had any experience in its use?
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 06:59:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Most Wanted List #4]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_most_wanted_list_4.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last week "The Discreditor" took the #5 spot on the Six Sigma Most Wanted list of naysayers.   This week, our countdown continues with # 4 - "The Busybody".
Mode of Operation (MO):  Much too busy to be bothered with Six Sigma.  Everyone is already working overtime just to handle the daily workload (which is probably crammed full of rework, bottlenecks and answering customer complaints).  They just can’t take on one more thing!  (Whew - I’m getting exhausted just writing about it)
Probability of existing without being detected:   LOW - Everybody knows that this naysayer is too busy for Six Sigma because the naysayer is constantly telling everyone.   Although the naysayer may not openly discredit the Six Sigma approach, the lack of participation in training, teams or anything related to Six Sigma sends a clear signal that they do not believe Six Sigma can be beneficial to their business.
Probability of having daily occurring nayisms:  MEDIUM - They are so busy that they couldn’t possibly come up with a nayism every day but their decline to participate on teams, training, etc.  is happening on a daily basis and so the message continues to be sent at regular intervals.
Probability that their nayisms will have negative long-term ramifications:  HIGH -  Even though this naysayer is not outwardly attacking Six Sigma, their mode of "non-participation" will clearly impact the department in the long run.   The inability to find time for employees to at least learn about the methodology stifles any hope that a bottom up movement would emerge.  The constant frustration of broken processes and long hours also makes it difficult for anyone to muster up the energy to learn about Six Sigma on their own much less try to engage in a team.
Overall Threat Level:  MEDIUM  (Ranked using Gianna’s proprietary naysayer scale)
Actions to Deal with Naysayer #4:  Here’s what I say . . .  There is definitely an opportunity to convert "The Busybody" but you must find an approach that will spark interest and address the WIFM (What’s in it for me).   Here’s a couple to try:

Communicate examples of where other "busy" departments have used Six Sigma to reduce their workload.  Make sure these other "busy" departments get lots of recognition for their accomplishment. 
Gather data and do some high-level analysis to identify pockets of defects, bottlenecks, etc. that if addressed, will increase productivity.  Show examples of how this worked in another department to add credibility to your approach.
See if you can obtain a Black Belt resource from another department to address a problem area and ask if the "much too busy" department is willing to provide ’ad-hoc’ team membership (to minimize production impact). 
Offer to deliver some "lunch and learn" sessions (no impact on production) where you can help employees understand how Six Sigma can positively impact them.  Use the opportunity to market Six Sigma benefits and get some input for areas where Six Sigma can be applied.
Basically, look for any opportunity to get your foot in the door because behind it lays a huge success story just waiting to happen!  
Tune in next week to find out who holds the #3 spot on the Six Sigma Most Wanted List!  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 13 May 2007 07:36:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Treat the symptoms, not the cause?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/treat_the_symptoms_not_the_cause.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here is a situation encountered on a recent project. I have abstracted the key-points here.
The project started as a textbook DMAIC engagement with all the elements you would expect to find including impact on customer, strategic problem, clearly measurable benefits and well-defined goals. 

The project was too tackle rework created at a certain process step producing a 5% defect rate. Although the defect rate was known, the number being fixed was not. Rapidly cracked-open the rework process and came up with a fix rate of 50%. So simple goals:

Reduce the defect rate from 5% to X%
Improve the rework from 50% to Y%
Attention moved onto the root-causes for the defects and as the analysis continued it became clear that the customer was unintentionally creating the defects and there were many many reasons why the customer could create the defect.
As an analogue it’s a bit like treating people with back pain. In a week any number of people can suffer and there could be any number of root-causes. It’s the treatment of the symptoms that becomes important with any number of root-causes to address. 
So the project came a crunch point, what to do. 

Could launch a DfSS project and rebuild the process from the ground-up with the goal of avoiding the defect situation in the first place. Not likely, way too big a project.
Could relentlessly quantify and address each and every root-cause. Decided against this, as I like getting rapid results. It would cost a lot of time &amp; money and most factors are out of my control anyway. (Although am pushing forward a few highly targeted improvements here.)
I decided to focus on the rework process. It consists of three main steps and at each point the defect can be corrected.  I am setting-up a DOE trial that will change these and other factors to find the optimum setting for fixing defects. Hence I am treating the symptoms not the cause. It feels wrong, but it happens!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 05:14:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: During the Break]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/during_the_break.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've only got one more session to attend before I pick the family up at the pool and head for home.  The snacks this afternoon are really good.  They are setting up now. Popcorn, licorice, candy bars, soda, peanuts and soft pretzels with queso.. Just what we need for the next session. Good thing I'm blogging close to the refreshment bar.  These goodies are going to go quick. 
I just sat in on an innovation and Six Sigma discussion.  It was pretty cool listening to everyone define what innovation means.  That's the first thing Six Sigma can do for innovation, reduce the variation in its definition! But that wouldn't be very innovative, now would it?  
I also had a short conversation over lunch with Karen Welch from Abbott Nutrition.  We talked about the "Future of Six Sigma."  She's very interested in the subject and had some really insightful thoughts on where Six Sigma is headed.  People are stating to gather around the snacks, I'd better go pick something up before everything is gone...  I'll pick up the blogging again later, I've got a few more blog entries drafted that just need some work before posting.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 15:39:27 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: #5 on the Six Sigma Most Wanted List]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/5_on_the_six_sigma_most_wanted_list.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ever wonder which Naysayers hold the distinction of being on the Six Sigma Most Wanted list?  With so many types of naysayers to pick from, it’s tough competition.  But after two years and 44 Nayisms, your time of wondering is coming to an end because the "Top 5 Countdown" is about to begin.
This week, landing the number 5 spot on the Six Sigma Most Wanted list of naysayers is "The Discreditor".
Mode of Operation:  Looks for opportunities to discredit Six Sigma.   Touts examples of Six Sigma companies that may not have increased their profit in the past year (like Six Sigma is the only "x" variable in this equation).  Highlights the few projects that may have floundered versus the hundreds of success stories.
Probability of existing without being detected:   LOW - This naysayer is vocal when given the opportunity and is easily spotted.
Probability of having daily occurring nayisms:  LOW - Must wait for something negative to happen in order to stir up chatter.  Most likely spends time during the work day combing through Dilbert cartoons looking for the next opportunity.
Probability that their nayisms will have negative long-term ramifications:  MEDIUM -  Most people will eventually realize that this naysayer does not have a strong basis for his/her nayisms.   But if left unchallenged, the continuous jabberwocky can perpetuate long lasting negativity throughout the organization.
Overall Threat Level:  LOW  (Ranked using Gianna’s proprietary naysayer scale)
Actions to Deal with Naysayer #5:  Here’s what I say . . .  Don’t let this naysayer’s gibberish go unchecked.  Get the facts and inform this naysayer and the people around him/her of the real deal.  Over time, the data and the results will speak for themselves.  
Tune in next week to find out who holds the #4 spot on the Six Sigma Most Wanted List!  Anybody care to take a guess?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2007 18:14:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: VOC Gone Wild]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voc_gone_wild.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It seems "Voice of the Customer" (VOC) is a label applied to almost any interaction between a business and a customer these days. Anything from direct interaction to the vaguest involvement along the periphery.  Anything from highly structured, planned, and observed interactions to informal, anecdotal, and third-hand accounts.
Some VOC is certainly useful. But more and more, my experience with VOC as it is typically gathered and used causes me concern. For one thing, I find VOC usually ignores even the most basic statistical thinking - especially special cause/common cause and notions of representative sampling. But even if we assume the best VOC methodology, there are two additional problems:

Customers usually aren’t well qualified to tell us what they want. What customer ever stood up and said they wanted an iPod? Or eBay? Or Facebook? And even when customers can accurately articulate what they want, it’ not always something that is practical or wise to deliver. For these reasons among others, direct VOC may be very useful for incremental innovation and improvement, but in my opinion it’s a unreliable path to breakthroughs.
The definition of "customer" is more difficult than it first appears. For example, are shareholders of public companies customers? Surely they are. And surely hearing their "voice" is not difficult. They vote each and every day on the markets. And we don’t have to conduct special studies to know what they want - most companies report to shareholders every quarter, and the shareholders make it instantly and extremely clear what they like and don’t like.
This second issue is especially problematic. Take airlines. Traditionally we think of the customer of an airline as the person flying. But obviously airlines don’t care too much about the voice of these "customers" - if they did, air travel would be a lot different. Every seat would be roomy and comfortable. Food and drink would be plentiful and of high quality. Airlines would do everything in their power to take off and land every flight on time, including having extra planes and crews on standby at every airport.
So why aren’t things this way? Because the actual customer being served is the shareholder, who demands that airlines do only what is necessary to be profitable and deliver results quarter by quarter. The shareholders care nothing for the voice of the flying "customers" - indeed, the average shareholder almost certainly has no idea how to run an airline or serve the flying public. In fact, given the prevalence of mutual funds, pension funds, and similar investment vehicles, it is doubtful whether most shareholders even know they own a given stock. But even so, they definitely want their stocks to rise. And despite thier mostly irrational behavior, it is these customers that make their voice know most clearly, and drive the most behavior by businesses.
The thorny part is that the actions that will make the stock rise can be very different from the ones that would make flying passengers happier. Diametrically opposite, even. Of course, the airline can’t lose market share - no one involved wants that - but if all airlines offer equally poor service and the total number of people flying still increases each year increases, then the rate at which customers come and go from any particular airline isn’t likely to matter (at least among the big players). I have virtually no knowledge of the airline industry, but I’m guessing this is the situation we’re in. And because of this, the voice of the shareholders becomes much, much more important than the voice of the flying customers, and we get the kind of airline service we have today.
As I said, I’m not an expert on airlines by any means, and anyone who is should feel free to pick apart my example. But the root cause stands, regardless of the specific example chosen: customers in general, whether shareholders or consumers, are unlikely to know anything about the business they patronize or own. And because shareholders demand only that stocks rise quarter by quarter, regardless of the good of the business in the long term, they are very likely to demand behaviors that directly injure "customers". Examine any publicly held company and you’ll be certain to find similar tension between these different groups of "customers", and neither group is particularly concerned about the long term well-being of the business. All of which means that reading too much into VOC is a very risky proposition.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: eBay Looking for Six Sigma Talent]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/ebay_looking_for_six_sigma_talent.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Pete Abilla who runs the shmula blog has just started working as the process improvement leader at eBay . I have been reading shmula since Pete started blogging and can honestly say that he is one of the best process improvement bloggers out there.  I often link to him in the Guest Blogger section of the iSixSigma Newsletter. 
Right now he’s looking for a few people in the Vancouver, BC area who know their way around Lean and Six Sigma to be part of the eBay team.  Read his post, Need a Job, eh? for the job description and detailed candidate qualifications.  
Pete is looking for Lean Six Sigma gurus who really know their stuff.  If you know an exceptional Black Belt in Vancouver, tell your friend about this position.  What a great opportunity this is -- working for Fortune 383 in a new process improvement initiative.  Believe me, as with all great things on eBay, this position won't be up for grabs for very long, don't get outbid - email Pete now!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 10:11:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Next Next Big Thing]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_next_next_big_thing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Six Sigma critics are right about one of their chief complaints: the program is a re-packaging of a lot of tools and ideas that have been around for a long time. Personally I don’t think that’s a bad thing, since many of the ideas that have been re-packaged were languishing before. Regardless of where the tools and ideas originally came from, the hype of Six Sigma has driven a lot of useful activity in areas where it wasn’t happening before.
Trouble is, the same thing is happening in a lot of different areas. Six Sigma as a program has several analogs, some competing and some in areas that Six Sigma hasn’t reached yet (like software design). You could argue that each program is different, but I would counter that even if that’s true, all of them have a similar aim. You could also argue about which of them is best; indeed, a great amount of energy seems to go into this argument every day.
But back to the aim. Beyond the specific project-level objectives of each program, what they all seek to provide is a conceptual framework. They collect different tools and ideas and put them together in a way that tries to be easily comprehensible. Lean does this. Six Sigma does this. 5S does this. SMED does this. 23 other continuous improvement programs do this. All of which leads to another question: what do you do in an organization that has Lean, Six Sigma, 5S, SMED, and all 23 of those other programs?
This is not hyperbole. In more and more organizations with good programs in individual discipline, it is a real problem. Just as Six Sigma provided and organizing framework for of a lot of disparate ideas and tools, we now need something to organize the various organizing frameworks. Failure to do this results in lack of alignment and missed synergies at best, and utterly disconnected silos working in opposition at worst. And it tends to be very difficult to address, because everyone involved is already genuinely working towards continuous improvement to the best of their ability. Change management experts will tell us we need a burning platform to make change happen – that’s unlikely to be the case in this scenario.
So what to do? How do we move up the next level in the hierarchy of organization? Once the Six Sigma program is running on all cylinders, the SMED team is in a groove, and the 5S group is having wild success, how do you tie them all together without killing the individual components? The obvious answer is not to let it happen in the first place. But in organizations of any size, it has almost certainly already happened. And it happens precisely because people on the ground want to do the right thing.
I don’t have the answers yet, but I think I’m coming closer to asking the right questions.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: IBM Study on Innovation and LSS]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/ibm_study_on_innovation_and_lss.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The IBM Institute for Business Value released a study earlier this year entitled “Driving operational innovation using Lean Six Sigma.” This study showcases how three companies - Caterpillar, POSCO, and Scottish Power have elevated Lean Six Sigma to do more than improve processes and reduce costs:  




    
 

Although CEOs might instinctively think of management approaches such as Lean Six Sigma in terms of process improvement and cost reduction, our research suggests that this perspective is shortsighted. The successful companies we studied acted in a more visionary manner. They deliberately expanded the scope of Lean Six Sigma, using it to surface significant innovation opportunities that impacted much more than their operations. And in the process, they were able to improve business performance and establish organizations that now have an inherent inclination toward innovation.
The next time you hear someone say that Six Sigma stifles innovation, forward them a copy of this report and let the success stories speak for themselves.  
Driving operational innovation using Lean Six SigmaIBM Institute for Business Value studyby: George Byrne, Dave Lubowe and Amy Blitz]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:14:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Decisions, Decisions...]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/decisions_decisions.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Blogosphere,
I’ve recently taken a big decision.  It’s important to know that it is totally the right decision but it was also a big decision.
You know when you make a decision sometimes you agonise over it and, as BBs, we often spend weeks gathering data to ensure we’ve absolutely, statistically verified that the decision we make is entirely correct and will deliver a defined capacity improvement along with a 25% revenue uplift.  
I didn’t do that this time and do you know what?  It’s probably the best decision I’ve made in 2 years of being a BB.  
You know sometimes as BBs we think too much.  Sometimes as BBs we work too hard.  Sometimes as BBs we just need to stop…just for a minute and take a look about our own selves and see what’s going on.
Let me ask you a big question about the decisions you make.  If you were to make a decision today that meant you choosing between a critical situation at work or a critical situation with your closest friend which would win?  And I want you to be honest, 100% straight up honest, with yourself.  Now, whatever your answer was, you’ve learned something about yourself today.
And that’s the point.  This is why I made the decision I have made.  This is why I had to get out of this six sigma world.  
As I see it, and this only my opinion, the UK corporate environment is breeding a dark habit of late night working and huge personal sacrifice in return for empty promises of future success and potentially significant, yet also emotionally empty, financial reward.
This constant and consistent push for bigger and better financial returns for our businesses, although valid for any growing business, is a short sighted and unbalanced viewpoint which conveniently continues to ignore the really difficult stuff in it’s push for ever more stretching targets and ROI – people.
In the training that we carry out as a team we use an excellent quote attributed to Tom Malone of Milliken Mills, which says “The hard stuff’s the easy stuff. The soft stuff’s the hard stuff. Total quality is 90% a people deal.”.
Through all my time in the blogoshpere I’ve been trying to put across my thoughts on this very point.  Six Sigma can be a cold, logical mistress and when you’re dealing with cold, logical machinery and in that context, that’s exactly what she should be.  Machines don’t have problems outside of work.  They just do as they’re told.  Amazingly, and this may come as a surprise to some, people are not machines and don’t always do as they’re told.  That’s why, in both manufacturing and in service industries, I believe George Eckes famous Process Improvement equation; QxA=E  [Quality x Acceptance = Effectiveness] still bears relevance.  This is how you get your ROI, this is how is should work.
Unfortunately this excellent message is now being diluted and changed.  My experience is that the slightly more complex;(HW+PS) x KSEM = ROI &amp; FB – [(Hard Work+Personal Sacrifice) x Key Stakeholder Ego Massage = Return on Investment &amp; Financial Benefit)] seems to be the new order of the day and, I believe, is not, in any way, shape or form, sustainable.
The focus on people management is how you get your QxA=E and, at the current time, many service organisations and their leaders are under so much pressure to deliver ROI and budget improvements that it is sadly inevitable that the people will come second and the latter equation will become more and more prevalent.
Is this the same everywhere and for everyone?  No, of course it’s not.  Many people are fortunate to work for employers who think progressively about their people and ensure a positive, client centred, encouraging working climate and I congratulate you for finding one.
For the rest of you…I ask you one thing - don’t sit back and let it happen.  Stand up, say what you mean and get the leaders of our organisations to change the things you aren’t happy with or get out and go and do something you’ll actually enjoy.  
I’m very lucky.  I can absolutely guarantee my new employer will motivate me and ensure the correct level of work/life balance at all times.  I know my new employer will pay me a fair wage and expect exactly the right amount of effort in return for that.  I know that if my new employer will not use the hour I leave the office as a gauge of my overall performance and I know that my new employer will spend the necessary time to understand and progress my personal development needs to the point where they may even invest in them financially.  
How do I know?  Because I’m my new employer.
People are my thing (can you tell).  From stories of gumball machines to the pleasure I felt in someone getting me to act like a penguin in a car park to my feeling (and still my feeling) that SS in service industries needs to take more care and awareness of the soft stuff, I’ve just wanted to make you think about yourself, rather than your data, for 5 minutes.  That’s been my intention through this blog, to let those of you that are lost in the data that there is another life out there.  Unfortunately as my passion and motivation for Six Sigma waned over the last year so did my ability to post anything positive, so my apologies for the stop-start nature of my blog however, as my mum used to say, “if you can’t say anything positive, don’t say anything at all”.
I’ve started my own company working with people just like you because I’ve got a real passion to see people happy, content and relaxed.  If you were to use 3 words to describe you and your colleagues what would they be?  And how big is the performance gap between the three words you came up with and the three words I just  used?  For many of you, my point has just been made.
If you want to know more about what I’m doing then please come and find my new blog out there in the wider blogosphere.  That should be live in the next 3-4 weeks once all the loose ends of finishing employment are tied up.
This isn’t an appropriate forum for promoting my new business and many of you might find it a geographical challenge to use all of my services so if you happen to fall past www.HeadStrongNLP.com you can find out all about it and drop me a line if you want to chat about anything personal or process improvement.
I wish you all the best of luck, the brightest of futures and all the benefits you’re looking for!  I hope someone reading this is the revolution waiting to happen…
Goodbye Six Sigma and thanks for listening.
Aloha
Brian
“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.” Periclese (a long, long time ago)
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Brian Costello]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:42:04 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Process driven improvements]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/process_driven_improvements.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When you are just started to work on a new project, as Six Sigma professional you are conditioned not to jump to conclusions and let the data and facts guide you to process improvements. However, by asking yourself two simple questions at the start of such an improvement initiative, you be able to get a first idea of where to start looking for improvement ideas. 1. Is the process customer facing or not ? A customer facing process delivers its outputs to external customers (or front office if you like) Examples : call centres operations, sales and after sales service …. Non-customer facing processes deliver their output to internal customers. These are typically back-office operations like planning, dispatching, purchasing, etc … 
2. Is the process a repetitive or not ? Repetitive processes return in a time set manner. The repetition can continuous or can be separated in time. Examples of repetitive processes : the financial reporting that has to run every month (separated in time), many manufacturing-like  processes repeat continuously.
In a non-customer facing process with repetitive work you need factory-like processes. Improvements will be focussing on flow creation, reducing waste and overburden, improving ergonomics, automation and standardization of work. 
Non repetitive and non customer facing processes need the job shop approach and  require highly skilled employees, specialist in their area, supported by the required systems and organisational structures.
A non-repetitive and customer facing process requires  professional service type of processes. Improvements will focus on skill development building, first time resolution improvement,  building customer relationships, etc …
Repetitive and customer facing : mass service process. Think about services like postal offices, hospital admissions, fast food restaurant services, etc … Standardization of work and customer friendliness in all its aspects are main areas for improvements.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sven Saerens]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:36:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What Flavour Are You?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_flavour_are_you.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently had an opportunity to talk with someone involved in a manufacturing deployment. What struck me was how different their deployment was to ours. This worried me into thinking we were somehow doing it wrong and not doing real Lean Six Sigma. I think I have now rationalised the experience and here is what I have concluded.
I started by considering the common characteristics across our deployments. We share a common foundation within the methodology with items such as:

High-impact, short-duration projects
Projects strategically aligned to stakeholders needs
Scope, problem definition and goals clearly defined
Focus on meeting defined customers needs
Clear sponsorship in place
Sustainable solutions delivered
Benefits modelled and measured
So what was different between our deployments? It seems to come down to tools. As you know in Lean Six Sigma we have a near “nuclear arsenal” when it comes to sophisticated tools. But what seems the mark the differences are the emphasis placed on and the lack of use of specific tools.
Operating in a Transactional environment I have yet to need a continuous gauge R&amp;R although the attribute gauge R&amp;R works. Never used Andon, SMED or Spaghetti Diagrams. I also suspect I “over-use” areas such as process mapping, process ownership and reviewing IT &amp; MI systems when compared to manufacturing. 
Apart from the Manufacturing to Transactional split, the other split that seems to influence tool use is Volume to Consultancy business model. We are a volume business, for example one of our product lines is consumer car insurance. It’s all about helping the customer assess our proposition to rapidly reach a buying decision. We measure and manage at volume e.g. conversion, acquisition, renewal and cancellation rates. The alternative being the consultancy business model where each customer brings a unique and individual set of requirements. Managing for volume just doesn’t figure, its all about customer intimacy so force-field analysis, account plans, VOC and kano analysis.
What does this mean? It seems the business model and manufacturing/transaction split seems to describe the core tools we come to rely on with four main flavours of tool usage across volume manufacturing, volume transactional, consultancy manufacturing and consulting transactional. Does this model stand-up to scrutiny?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:00:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Networking &quot;Chicago Style&quot;]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/networking_chicago_style.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last week I joined several of my colleagues in Chicago to participate in the Conference Board’s 2007 Six Sigma Leadership Conference.    More than 115 Six Sigma leaders gathered to network and learn more about how companies are “Leveraging  Lean and Traditional Six Sigma to Optimize Business Process Delivery”.   
Mike Kirby, Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Business Transformation) enlightened us concerning the largest deployment ever undertaken by a single entity – the U.S. Army.  Denis Gallagher, Vice President Six Sigma at Quest Diagnostics and Leslie Behnke, Vice President Business Excellence CIGNA Corporation gave us a glimpse of how Six Sigma can be effectively applied in the medical diagnostic and healthcare industry.
These were just a few of the numerous speakers that openly shared their experience.  In addition to an awesome speaker line-up,  the conference provided a terrific opportunity to network with Six Sigma professionals who have a keen interest in finding new and innovative ways that Six Sigma can help their company be even more successful. 
Networking by definition is a supportive system of sharing information among individuals and groups having a common interest.  Organizations like The Conference Board,  iSixSigma, IQPC, ISSSP and others offer a wide choice of opportunities and locations for Six Sigma professionals to network.  There is always something to learn and someone to meet.   Taking advantage of these opportunities is just one more way to keep in step with what’s going on in the world of Six Sigma!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Conferences&nbsp;,&nbsp;General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:55:25 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: More on Six Sigma and Data Quality]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/more_on_six_sigma_and_data_quality.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In two previous blogs, I wrote about intersections between Six Sigma, internal control and data quality. By way of background information, my department performs compliance functions, where we monitor information delivered by third parties and created through internal operations. 
For example, we receive property-address information and derive new information like geospatial position through "geocoding" processes. Since we monitor data for compliance, our process inputs are hundreds of data elements, and our output is systematic, timely determination of whether data quality is acceptable or needs improvement. Anyone who works in the "governance, risk and compliance" arenas will appreciate the unique challenges associated with designing and optimizing monitoring processes. Characterizing measurement error is a constant challenge. 
In a future blog, I will share our experiences with assessing measurement precision (Gage R&amp;R) and understanding stability and bias. Here I want to focus on an immediate challenge, and request insight on best practices. Our compliance monitoring is very new. We are designing processes that will move compliance to the front end of our value chain, so we measure data quality at the "point of truth" and reconcile these data to points of consumption by risk, control and compliance functions. Our focus right now is on designing, piloting and calibrating our compliance monitoring. 
Our approach is highlighted in my earlier blog on Six Sigma and data quality. We are beginning to produce expected-versus-actual defect rate observations for our critical data elements. These statistics are generating lots of interest and questions about how we define an expected defect rate (voice of customer) and determine the importance of a lower-than-expected defect rate (the focus of my writing). Two questions perenially come up: 
First, does a lower-than-expected defect rate indicate a high, medium or low level of risk? Some critical data elements are more important than others and more sensitive to variance. Second, how do we come up with a risk rating? 
We are now beginning to explore these questions. One approach would determine the financial risk associated with an unfavorable variance in data quality. Our enterprise risk management processes have not matured to the point, where a reliable methodology is available to us. A broader perspective would consider the reputational risk associated with an unfavorable variance in data quality. Other than benchmarking internal data quality against our industry, judgment prevails because methodological scoring for reputational risk is not feasible. In practice, risk assessment frameworks seem to offer broad criteria or rules of thumb, whereby we can draw conclusions about risk exposure. 
Another challenge is connecting these criteria to defect-rate observations. We are exploring alternative tools, including FMEA. Your insight about the following will be appreciated:

Are there best practices for assessing risk or cost of poor data quality? Are these best practices applicable to measurement observations?
Are there lessons to be learned from manufacturing settings (e.g., techniques to estimate risk of product liability or cost of poor quality from raw-material defect rate observations)?
How are companies using FMEA to assess process risks, based on process metrics? After all, data quality is a type of process metric.
Your comments are encouraged, or please email me at charles@charlescmckinney.com.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Gold Diggers Strike Six Sigma Vein]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/gold_diggers_strike_six_sigma_vein.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Meridian Gold finds and produces gold with its mining operations in Chile as well as a pipeline of exploration projects throughout the Americas.  While continuous improvement is nothing new to the El Peñón mine, they recently began using Six Sigma in their Operational Excellence initiative:  




    
 

Edgar Smith, Meridian’s Vice President of Operations, commented, "I am pleased to announce that we have re-hired Stabro Kasaneva as the General Manager of the El Peñón Mine. Stabro will be responsible for leading his team in ramping up the mine to 2,800 tonnes per day and implementing the new operational excellence initiatives, which are based on the Six Sigma principles to help achieve these goals. Meridian Gold Press Release
For Meridian, the color of Six Sigma gold just might turn out to be green.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:36:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Easter Basket - Got Eggs?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_easter_basket_got_eggs.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ever wonder what kind of eggs would be found in a Six Sigma easter basket?   Here’s what I say . . .

Eggs-ceptional teams
Eggs-citing projects
Eggs-ponential ROI
Eggs-traordinary improvements
Eggs-hilarating challenges
Eggs-treme customer satisfaction
Hope your Six Sigma easter basket is filled with Eggs-actly what you need.  Happy Easter!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:20:59 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Mission Impossible]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/mission_impossible.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After last year’s run-in with my broadband provider, here is an equally nonsensical situation encountered with my wireless provider. It highlights another core business issue. 
My mobile phone (cell phone) broke, so I ordered a new one and it arrived the next day. Handed over the broken phone and started-up the new one. Hold on, where are the 5-years worth of telephone numbers I have accumulated! 
Emergency call to customer services, seems I should have backed-up the information onto my PC. OK, so can I have my old phone back? No, our contract states that once the phone has been taken it can’t be returned. Yes, but I need it back, its been less than an hour since it was taken, the courier will still have it. No, it is impossible, the contract states that once taken it can’t be returned. And so it went on.
Emergency call to the account management team, explained situation and asked if they could intervene. No, it is impossible the phone has gone; it will be in a skip with hundreds of others by now. The contract states that once the phone has been taken…… 
So I call the courier business, can I get my phone back? No, it is impossible our contract is with the wireless provider we are not authorised to return phones. But it must be possible? No, our contract states that…….
This called for drastic measures. I call the courier business again and ask to be put through to the local depot. I get the job number for the delivery and eventually discover the phone will be delivered back to the local depot at 9am the next morning. After a number of calls I get agreement from both head-offices that I can retrieve the phone. Drive the 20 miles next morning and physically pull the phone out of the process. Have to replace it with the new working phone as they are contracted to return a phone to be scrapped else they have to pay a £200 charge! 
Order new phone and discuss with courier (during maximum of 4 minutes allowed for in contract). Seems this situation happens all the time, never known anyone who has managed to retrieve a phone before. Has had directors begging to get their phones back but the contract states……. 
I imagine the team that designed this process with its strict polices &amp; business service levels must feel very proud. It runs like clockwork. One phone delivered one phone returned, prid pro quo. All accounted for, none lost, perfect, possibly giving an extremely high sigma metric for the Big Y. Some imaginative poka-yoke included, its impossible to return a phone, no rework, simple message to customers, everyone complies. 
It’s the unintended consequences that concern me here. The impact on the secondary process metrics and impact on the customer. I get the impression that the process is more important than the customer. 
As you all know three data points makes a clear trend, so interested to see if telco’s get a third mention here.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:01:56 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: On-line Orientation: Your Dream Come True or Your Next Nightmare?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/on_line_orientation_your_dream_come_true_or_your_next_nightmare.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 44:  "What do you mean by asking my employees to spend an hour doing on-line Six Sigma orientation?  You must be dreaming if you think I can afford to have them away from their job for that amount of time."
Will trying to get this naysayer on board be your next nightmare?  How should you respond?  Here’s what I say . . .
"I understand your concern with having employees spend time away from their work station but the training is needed to provide them with a basic understanding of what our company is trying to accomplish through Six Sigma.  After learning the basics, these employees may come up with ideas where Six Sigma may help improve their processes.  In addition, their understanding and buy-in will help when they are asked to implement improvements resulting from Six Sigma projects.  Identifying opportunities and implementing improvements is part of everyone’s job.  It is only right that we help them gain the knowledge and skills they need to be successful.  Please consider providing them with this opportunity to learn (smile)"
OK.  If that doesn’t work, you might see yourself saying this . . .  "One hour, one measly hour a year.  I can’t believe you are making a freakin’ big deal about having your employees spend one hour a year on something that will help them and the company improve performance.  The average employee spends more than one hour in the bathroom in a week if they go three times a day for five minutes.   Maybe I should just install an on-line training monitor in the bathroom and train the entire workforce in a week."  At this point you wake up and realize that you could only really say this in your dreams.   So you get up, go to work, face your newest nightmare and say (with a smile)  "I understand your concern . . ."
Don’t get discouraged.  Keep trying different approaches and one may end up being the key to helping this naysayer understand the benefits of getting their employees involved.  Remember, it’s often the last key on the ring that opens the lock.   
But just in case, get yourself a dreamcatcher!  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Blogosphere Reader Survey]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/blogosphere_reader_survey.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here’s your chance to tell us what you think about the iSixSigma Blogosphere.  Take our reader survey and help us improve your experience reading the blogs.http://www.isixsigma.com/blogsurvey
iSixSigma.com is also running a reader survey, so head on over to the URL below and take it while you’re at it.http://www.isixsigma.com/isssurvey  
Over the next few weeks we will be conducting surveys for all the CTQ Media websites, including BPMEnterprise.com, Sourcingmag.com and RealInnovation.com.  So get your feedback hats on and get ready to tell us how we’re doing and where we can improve. Thanks!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:16:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Questions about Six Sigma in outsourced functions]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/questions_about_six_sigma_in_outsourced_functions.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[KPMG, the public accounting firm, recently published a survey of outsourcing. Nearly three out of four companies in the survey do not measure the value of their outsourcing arrangements. Yet paradoxically, KPMG concludes outsourcing is working because 89% of their survey participants plan to maintain or increase their use of outsourcing.
The survey leads me to ask a few questions:

Is satisfaction with outsourcing based on notions of comparative efficiency, or do organizations have performance metrics?
How do companies apply business process management and integrate control plans into their outsourcing arrangements? 
Not all outsourcing arrangements are created equal. Do companies use Quality Function Deployment or other techniques to (re)design their outsourced processes? 
Are any organizations using Six Sigma in an inter-enterprise fashion to improve overall performance of outsourced processes? 
Do contract terms and conditions create high barriers to leveraging Six Sigma within an outsourced process?
Any insights would be appreciated.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:55:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Global Process? No Such Thing.]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/global_process_no_such_thing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The first business process I ever put together was heavily indebted to Kevin Costner. If I build it, I figured, they will come.
And I did build it. A perfect process, polished in every detail. A global process, that everyone involved would adopt. A useful process, that would solve many disparate problems in a foul swoop. The documentation gleamed. The diagrams leapt off the page. The prose flowed like a swift mountain stream. It was a thing of beauty. Everyone was going to do everything the same way, and life would be perfect. But no one came.
In fact, my first process was a complete and utter flop. Despite being well thought out (all the right people were involved), well designed (people smarter than me worked on it), and otherwise pretty solid on paper, we ended up building a road that led precisely nowhere. Why? Because we set out to design the fabled “global process.” And it’s taken me a long time to learn why that almost never works.
The idea of global process is enchanting. Left alone, most organizations will develop several variants of even the simplest common processes. Over time, this leads to variation in output, inability to communicate between areas, and eventually a move away from the very idea of process as “a repeated set of actions.” The endpoint of this progression can be chaos, and chaos is mighty hard to manage.
Faced with this possibility, global process seems like a very good idea. The higher you go in an organization, the more fervent the desire to have everyone doing things the same way. And as the experience I described above illustrates, it’s not hard to put a team together to develop a good single process that maximizes benefit to everyone involved.
But once you have that global process in hand, a thorny questions arises. What do you do with it? A good process that exists only on paper is useless. Change management and similar methodologies can help us a lot here, but whatever the new process is and whatever methodology we use to deploy it, we have teach individuals to interact with the process. And it’s generally right around this point that global anything goes out the window.
It has to. Process lives in individuals. As any line manager can tell you, even if you have only 10 individuals to worry about, you can easily spend your entire day trying to get folks to operate a simple process in a consistent manner. You might accomplish it in a technical environment through rigorous, ongoing training and techniques like poka-yoke. But in a transactional or business process environment you wouldn’t have a prayer. Now what about 100 people? Or 10,000? Or 100,000? You get the idea. Unless you intend to hover over every one of them every moment of the day, you can toss the notion of global process out the window.
I suspect the halls of most corporations are littered with the skeletons of global processes that fell prey to this failure mode. It’s incredibly common. Teams are chartered every day to design processes that never achieve the intended result, or even see the light of day. So what do we do about it? How do we get around the paradox that even global process must necessarily be customized to the environment of every single user?
For me, the answer can be summed up in a word: robustness. The best place to start is not by asking “how can we make everybody do the same thing?”, but rather by asking “how can we accommodate the differences that we know are going to exist anyway.” Or by asking “what do we absolutely have to make consistent?” rather than “what can we make consistent?” This subtle difference in thinking can have a profound effect on the outcome of process design.
Take project tracking. Most Six Sigma programs tend towards forcing all projects into a global tracking system; everyone is asked to do it the same way, with the same templates, forms, deadlines, etc. This is a logical response to the question of “what can we make consistent?” The answer is “just about everything.” But if you scratch below the surface of this supposedly global process, you’ll either find a team of people running hard (and probably failing) to try and make everyone do everything the same way every time, or a lot of practitioners simply ignoring the global process. If you don’t see one of these things, you’ll almost certainly see the other. Which is why global process usually doesn’t exist in practice, although it’s alive an well in theory.
But what if we design our system by asking a different question: what is the smallest number of things we can get away with making consistent? The answer is usually a tiny subset of the things that we could make consistent. Maybe we need a few pieces of crucial information on each project at a particular time to feed our roll-ups. Maybe we need a consistent way to view progress towards goals. As for the rest…who cares? So what if everyone does it differently? Does it really matter if a Black Belt working on widgets in Wichita uses the same PowerPoint template as a Green Belt working on new hire provisioning in New Hampshire? Does it matter if their team meetings have the same agenda? Does it matter if they follow the same roadmap? Not to me, and I suspect not to anyone. And furthermore, the chances that I can optimize the process for every environment better than the person actually doing the work are vanishingly small.
Armed with this realization, I figured I would work towards an 80/20 rule. That is, I’d build in robustness by leaving 80% of the process local in nature, while doing my best to maintain global consistency around the remaining 20%. In other words, for every 1 thing I was prepared to insist folks do my way, I tried to leave 4 things that they could do however they wanted. This made a tremendous difference in my day-to-day activities (wow – I have time to eat lunch again!) and an even bigger difference in the reception I got. Managing change became a whole lot easier, because the magnitude of change at the individual level was minimal. But the process still looked global from above, much more than when I was trying to make every single thing consistent. It really was paradoxical. It felt like I was doing a lot less work and catalyzing a lot less change, but the outcomes were far more successful that when I had tried to make everything global.
Think of this as the YouTube approach. To get something on YouTube you need meet only a tiny number of consistent criteria. Your content needs to be video, and you need to be able to upload it via the YouTube interface. What device captures the video? Doesn’t matter. What kind of computer do you use? Doesn’t matter. How do you describe it? Doesn’t matter. When should you upload it? Doesn’t matter. I could go on, but you get the idea. The very little bit of global process that YouTube employs meshing with the massive amount of customization done by the user, which has the effect of democratizing the process as a whole. And paradoxically, this makes the process seem globally consistent, even though it’s almost entirely different for every single person. This is intelligent use of robustness in process design. And it works beautifully.
If those initial efforts taught me one thing, it was that I hadn’t gone far enough. I now tend towards a 90/10 rule, and I’m toying with a 95/5 rule. It works for YouTube, and it’s been working for me.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Tough Nut To Crack]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/tough_nut_to_crack.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last week was a difficult week in the office with a number of day-to-day issues going the wrong way. As the week drew to close I found myself feeling low and faced with a 4-hour drive home.
On the way home I indulged in some negative brainstorming around people’s job titles e.g. Director of Infuriating Customers and Head of Senseless Processes. This didn’t get me very far but got me thinking about progress in delivering our long-term objectives. I tried to come up with the right analogy for this multi-year venture. 
I am not sure if there is an industry standard analogy, so here are my attempts.
I started with the idea of the battle of good against bad. But this didn’t work as we are all on the same side. With so much intricacy, politics/agendas, networking, reorganisations and other variables involved the good/bad analogue is just too crude. 
So how about steering the super-tanker off the rocks and into safe waters? If only it was so simple, single process, single issue, job done. Afraid we are much too complex with a number of different businesses and operating divisions.
How about the expert coach leading the team to triumph at the Olympics? We are all about delivering sustainable results not one off successes. 
Possibly the expert surgeon who precisely operates on the sick patient? Feels a bit nearer, but still random in terms of who comes through the door.
Then it struck me, what I needed was a happy ending. So the analogy is each LSS deployment is a story, the length can run from a short article to a massive novel. I am merely in the middle of a difficult chapter.
For me a happy ending, the gods of motorway traffic smiled and I got home in only three and a half hours. Just in time to read both children their bedtime stories.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:45:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lonmin Six Sigma, Looking for Benchmarking Visit]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lonmin_six_sigma_looking_for_benchmarking_visit.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We have a fantastic issue of iSixSigma Magazine coming up in May. The cover story is about Lonmin, a primary producer of platinum group metals. They focus on discovery, acquisition, development and marketing of minerals and metals.
The short story goes like this: Prior to Brad Mills becoming CEO, the quality of life for Lonmin workers in South Africa was not good. They would go miles underground to work the mines, and some would not return. I’ll leave the details for the magazine article. After changing top leadership and implementing Six Sigma as a way to deliver benefits for both the business and lives of workers, Bishop Desmond Tutu (1984 Nobel Peace Prize) visits and declares that the improvements he’s seen are what he’s been talking about for years. Quite an endorsement, to say the least. And their Six Sigma financial benefits are staggering as well. (Did I mention that we’re telling the whole story in the upcoming May/June issue of iSixSigma Magazine?)
Now a team of about five MBBs and MBB candidates are visiting the Chicago area April 30 through May 3. They are willing to present their deployment and results in return for a visit to a Six Sigma deployment in the Chicago area. Interested in sharing? Contact me and let me know your company name and your contact information. I’ll hook you up.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:27:29 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Comments on organizational design]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/comments_on_organizational_design.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A few comments on organizational design and Six Sigma ... 
Organizational structure is one consideration. The decision to centralize or functionally embed black belts has to consider an organization’s business model, culture and past experience with process improvement. Likewise, compensation, career track, professional development and human capital management practices are important. 
In some organizations, Six Sigma deployment hinges on consensus -- building momentum through repeated success and visibility through demonstrated benefits. In others, strong leadership and sensible organization design can force adoption. 
Everyone likes stories about Six Sigma taking hold and becoming a part of company DNA. Sometimes this comes about by giving managers a stark choice -- requiring managers to use Six Sigma as a portfolio of cost savings tools and show benefits, for example, or work through mandated G&amp;A expense reduction. Key to organizational design is the deployment strategy and critical success factors for scale and sustainability.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:59:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What's In Your Pot O'Gold?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whats_in_your_pot_ogold.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 43:  Ever since we started deploying Six Sigma, everyone has been jumping around like they found the golden nugget.  Don’t they know that golden nuggets don’t really exist?
Hmmm.   Sounds like this naysayer may have kissed the ’ole blarney stone one too many times.  Believe it or not, the Six Sigma Pot O’Gold is full of golden nuggets.  They didn’t just appear in the pot one day.  They were slowly earned through hard work and determination.  Where did they come from?   Here’s what I say . . .
When Six Sigma is used to solve a long standing problem that had previously been worked on for years - that’s a golden nugget.
When Six Sigma proves that the "Just Do It" answer was not the right answer after all - that’s a golden nugget.
When Six Sigma is used to fix your measurement system so that your business decisions are now based on good data -  that’s a golden nugget.
When your financial contribution from Six Sigma projects exceed your annual goal by over 70% - that’s a golden nugget.
When your toughest naysayer thanks a Black Belt for solving an unsolvable problem - that’s a golden nugget.
The true riches of Six Sigma are usually found one golden nugget at a time.  
May your Six Sigma Pot O’Gold be filled with lots of golden nuggets on this St. Patrick’s Day!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:28:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Don't Exile Your Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/dont_exile_your_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 42:  Why does every department have to have their own Black Belt?  Let’s just pick some people to be Black Belts, give them a job title, put them in a separate department and be done with it.
Sound like a good idea?    Here’s what I say  . . .
One of the most important aspects in allowing Six Sigma to become engrained in an organization is that each and every employee must feel like they are responsible for continuous improvement.  When Black Belts report to a separate department, improving processes may be viewed as "their" job instead of everybody’s job.   This may cause employees to feel less responsibility or ownership for improving their processes.  Keeping Black Belts aligned with and reporting into the line organization sends a clear message that their role is a part of how their department operates.
So, don’t exile your Black Belt to the quality department abyss.  Welcome them as part of your department’s team and you may find that the only things that get banished are defects and problems.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:39:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma and Data Quality]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_and_data_quality.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After spending considerable time over the last few weeks on designing a compliance process to measure the quality of information, I want to share a few observations.  Feedback about how companies are addressing data quality through Six Sigma would be most helpful.
Companies are approaching an inflection point: exploiting information is their next lever to innovate or become efficient.  Chief Executive Officers believe information technology (IT) can be a competitive differentiator. Cost savings initiatives in the information systems function are winding down because of diminishing returns. The volume of corporate data is on the rise.  Opportunities for growth and diversification may arise through how companies exploit their Information.  This depends on understanding quality of information -- starting with the basics of how to measure data for defects -- and setting a foundation to improve its reliability.
This inflection point is not lost on control, risk and compliance executives. Sarbanes Oxley increased the scope of internal controls testing, and audit fees skyrocketed. While audit costs are coming down, new data-centric threats are emerging: states' privacy legislation, consumer protections, international regulations and other corporate mandates are placing new demands on how companies collect, analyze, control and disclose information. And data quality is a challenge on multiple fronts ranging from how companies accrue liabilities to model their operational risks. Today, many companies lack a framework to measure data quality through a "mandate" lens and extrapolate a corporate data quality index.
Business process management can help. One form of business process management is a "current state assessment" to ease a department into process improvement with DMAIC or organizational transformation with Design for Six Sigma. It goes something like this: document process flows, inputs and outputs; understand voice of customer; propose metrics and collect data; and define opportunities for process improvement. In situations like this, achieving a state where executives receive useful information about process performance is often a significant achievement.
Companies can tailor business process management framework to understand data quality:

Start by understanding your important corporate mandates that depend on data quality. For a credit card company, these mandates might include financial reporting, credit risk and management reporting about trends that would signal predatory or discriminatory practices. 
For each of these mandates, document their information dependencies (i.e., the critical data elements needed to obtain information to fulfill the mandate).  Determine where data are provisioned within the company, and whether they are created by upstream business processes or obtained from customers or third parties. 
With this knowledge, determine criteria for "good" or "bad" data -- criteria for completeness, accuracy, consistency, reasonableness, and other relevant quality dimensions. Embed these criteria in query software to measure data, use your method of choice to calculate data quality, and begin spending time on root cause analysis.
A variety of formats is available to present measurement and analysis. Consider modifying statistical process control charts to track data quality. Create a simple scorecard to summarize trends by showing critical data elements on one axis, "mandates" on another axis, and data quality yield rates by mandate in cells. Feedback on other approaches, methods and presentation tools is encouraged.
Over the coming months, I look forward to expanding dialogue about applying Six Sigma to information management and data quality.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:11:56 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Fourth Annual iSixSigma Global Salary Survey]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/fourth_annual_isixsigma_global_salary_survey.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As research manager for iSixSigma Magazine, I spend my Decembers analyzing the data from the iSixSigma Job Shop to figure out who makes what and where they make it.  I really enjoy crunching the numbers because I get to spend so much time in Minitab. (My love for Minitab was kindled by my Black Belt instructor, Paul Sheehy, who later became an official Minitab trainer.)  
The results from the latest analysis has become the 4th Annual Six Sigma Global Salary Survey, published in March/April issue of iSixSigma Magazine.
A Press Release issued this morning gives you a taste of the data - revealing the worldwide salary and bonus figures for Black Belts, Master Black Belts, Champions and Deployment Leaders.  
On average, BBs across the globe earn $76,241per year and their average bonus is $9,698.  For the salary and bonus figures for MBBs, Champions and DLs, read the Press Release.
Here on the Blogosphere, I’ll give you a bit more salary trivia to spark those water cooler conversations... 
Question: How much does a Black Belt in the United Sates make a year?  Answer: About $10,000 more than the worldwide average: $86,011
Question:  If you work in India as a Six Sigma Black Belt how much do you make?   Answer: $51,956
True or False:  "I am a certified Black Belt, here are my credentials...I should make more than the average Joe Black Belt who went through training but does not have formal certification like I do." Answer: False.  There is no statistical difference in salaries between certified Black Belts and non-certified Black Belts.
Question: What is the highest paying industry for Black Belts in the United States? Answer: Telecommunications: $104,457
The full survey results are available in the print edition of iSixSigma Magazine, as well as online to subscribers in the newly launched digital edition.
iSixSigma 4th Annual Six Sigma Global Salary Survey Press Release]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:17:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What is your structure?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_is_your_structure.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A review of the information covering Lean Six Sigma deployments shows a clear focus on such items as.


Roles &amp; responsibilities: - e.g. champion, process owner, MBB, and BB

Critical success factors: - e.g. Leadership commitment, alignment to strategy and suitable training/accreditation system

Project selection &amp; sponsorship
But what I have been interested in is how to structurally construct the deployment. In this area the materials are lacking. I suspect this is because every business is different and has very different requirements. Coming from a transactional background I describe my experience and provide 4 example deployment structures. I accept there are other potential approaches. 
1. The Big Ticket DeploymentLooking for full-size and rapid benefits? Call in the experts. Hire a team of lean six sigma experts so you can hit the ground running. They may be expensive but you get real value and immediate results.
2. The Practise DeploymentHighly motivated and able practitioners combine to deliver Lean Six Sigma across the business. Reporting to their MBB and ultimately the Champion they deliver strategic projects into any target business line.
3. The Embedded DeploymentThe BB/GB works directly for the process owner to first baseline and then introduce continuous improvement in core processes. A small central team of MBB’s provide coaching, mentoring and other support services.
4. The One Stop Shop DeploymentThe internal business consultancy division offers continuous improvement among its suite of capabilities. Lean Six Sigma people can be deployed among other related change and strategic technologies.
I suspect no one business is a pure play is any deployment structure and is more likely to be a hybrid. It is of course the unique merits of each structures benefits and risks that will drive the decision on which way to go. But its a big decision to make because it commits your people and cash to a delivery approach. 
Does your preferred deployment structure match the approach chosen by your business? ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:56:44 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Contemplating Six Sigma and Internal Control]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/contemplating_six_sigma_and_internal_control.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For my first blog at iSixSigma, I would like to contemplate disciplines that are slow to embrace Six Sigma but need it most: internal control and enterprise risk management. Passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 thrust these domains into the limelight. The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) defines enterprise risk management as follows: 

"Enterprise risk management is a process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management and other personnel, applied in strategy setting and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that may affect the entity, and manage risk to be within its risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of entity objectives." 
COSO’s definition and several internal control concepts evoke quality: risk management is quality management; risk appetite sounds like fault tolerance; reasonable assurance regarding achievement of objectives depends on satisfying expectations of customers and regulators. 
Language is a barrier to Six Sigma penetrating internal control disciplines. Ask a focus group of CPAs to explain the link between defects per unit and risk of misstatement, and many will scratch their heads. Risk of misstatement -- inherent or residual risk of events giving rise to a significant or material misstatement of financial results -- becomes heady as soon as discussion turns to assertions, materiality, control objectives, fraud considerations and methods of reaching conclusions (e.g., probability, belief-function theory, fuzzy logic). Translated into practice, Six Sigma can be a powerful tool for internal control practices: business process management and DMAIC are a systematic way to baseline and improve internal controls over financial reporting, compliance and operations. Co-evolution of these disciplines needs to occur, as managers strive for systematic thinking, discipline and cost savings in their Sarbanes Oxley programs. 
Integration of Six Sigma, internal control and enterprise risk management disciplines will progress over time. Six Sigma deployment in finance, accounting and compliance functions is young relative to manufacturing and operations. Internal control disciplines are just passing through the first two years of Sarbanes Oxley compliance. Using voice of the customer to drive compliance monitoring, measurement of control effects and testing of key controls will become mainstream.Your thoughts, experiences and knowledge sharing are encouraged.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:12:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Hello World]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/hello_world.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My understanding of Lean Six Sigma is mainly based on the projects and the people I work with here at Aviva. Being one of the biggest businesses in the UK, Aviva gives me great opportunity to work on complex problems &amp; processes. But it has its limitations.  I work exclusively in the financial services market and the projects are entirely transactional and heavily related to people and IT driven processes. This worries me. As Donald Rumsfeld said (rather him than me) "we know what we know, we know that there are things we do not know, and we know that there are things we don’t know we don’t know" 
But its OK, as with everything these days, there is some theory and a model for this. You start top-right and work your way around as you become more aware and knowledgeable.

For example, when I first came into LSS I had no idea that I didn’t know about confidence intervals but I learnt about them and now understand them. I’m definitely not top-left, where I can do brilliant things without knowing how I do them.
I don’t know anything about LSS in manufacturing. Nor how LSS is applied in other industries e.g. oil &amp; gas or health. I haven’t seen many other LSS deployment models or businesses with different levels of sponsorship. So I don’t know how we benchmark.
I’d like to say ignorance is bliss but that goes right against the basic principles of LSS. But the more I read and do the more I realise how big the subject really is. So if you are 10-years along the journey do you still feel there is a mountain in front of you and can you see the top?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:36:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: On Averages]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/on_averages.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(Or “On Arithmetic Means”, if you prefer.)
I hardly need mention in this forum that as a standalone descriptive statistic, the average can be a dangerous piece of information. Averages quoted in the absence of other descriptive statistics are generally insufficient at best, and downright misleading at worst. I’ll skip the lecture on the importance of variation and related topics (Wheeler already has it nailed in this book anyway), but I do want to focus on one particular aspect of averages that I find a lot of people forget. Including me.
A lot of the time, the average never occurs.
For example, the average weight of the four residents in my household is 31 pounds. No, we aren’t long lost Lilliputians – in fact, no one in the house (me, my wife, the cat, the dog, 6 fish) weighs anything close to 31 pounds. Or to paraphrase the old joke about statisticians, on average they feel like the temperature is just fine if they are sleeping with their head in the freezer and their feet in the fire.
To a statistician or Black Belt or anyone else suitably well versed on the topic, this is hardly earth-shattering news. But to some people, the fact that a statistical average isn’t synonymous with a “usual” or “typical” value within the population is surprising. And even to those of us who know better, this fact can be a slippery one to hold on to.
Mathematically, the fact that the average might never occur in a population is not hard to understand or explain. And I don’t have trouble remembering it mathematically. The mistake I tend to make is conceptual.
Suppose, for example, you are designing a project tracking process. You might be using Excel spreadsheets and creating a home-grown solution for a dozen projects, or working with a vendor to roll out something much bigger and more complex for hundreds of projects. Either way, in my experience the tendency is to design the system for a project with “average needs” and “average complexity”. The problem is that the "average project" isn’t in your portfolio – it’s an entirely hypothetical entity. Design for it, and you’ll have a solution that perfectly fits a need that doesn’t exist.
Another example is assigning pre-work before Black Belt training. Sure, we might know what the “average person” needs to do – we’ve almost certainly designed our class for the “average participant” who has an “average background”, right? But our classes don’t fill with average people. They fill with some people who know a lot and don’t need much pre-work, or with people who don’t know much and need a lot, or for people somewhere in between. Assigning the same pre-work to every person will serve none of them adequately. We’d be far better off assessing each individual and offering a range of options based on specific needs. But for whatever reason, that's almost never done. We get stuck on the "average need" and cater to it exclusively.
In both of these cases, the problem is that we use summary statistics like the average even though probably we shouldn’t be summarizing at all. If we are interested in accommodating every member of the population, what business do we have basing anything on summary statistics anyway? The entire point of many summary statistics is that they hide variation and complexity – they hide the mess, if you will. But sometimes the mess is exactly what we need to see and deal with. Which is counter-intuitive, and counter to a lot of the training we Six Sigma folks give and receive. 
(For some related thoughts on this topic, see Holly Hawkins last blog entry. Standardization is not always the answer!)]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Road To Nowhere]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/road_to_nowhere.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A little off message today, but (eventually) topical.
Britain’s ancient roads have carried people and livestock for centuries. But it was the engineering skills of the Romans who transformed our road transportation system. In the first 100 years after their invasion in 43AD they built at least 8000 miles of road so even the most remote hamlet was never more than 10 miles from an engineered road. With the Roman withdrawal in the 5th century, no hard roads were built until the 18th century. People made do with what the Romans had left, bridges collapsed and surfaces disintegrated.
As trade developed in the 16th century travel was a dangerous and expensive procedure. The poor state of the road network limited trade and the economy. Many roads were impassable in the winter and travellers were subject to frequent hold-ups by highwaymen. To address this in the 17th century the local parishes were made responsible for the upkeep of roads in their parishes. The locals were required by law to give 6 days free labour to work on the roads. This was inefficient and in many cases not done at all.
By the end of the 17th century it was apparent that another method was needed. The obvious answer was to charge road users and the money used for highway repairs. The use of tolls and turnpike roads was slow to catch-on and it was not until the middle of the 18th century that the system came into its own. Long distance journey times were slashed (e.g. Norwich to London from 50 to 19 hours). However charges were very unpopular. Many people avoided the tolls and numerous attacks on toll keepers made it a capital offence. But by the end of the 18th century turnpikes were accepted and generally used.
Today, London's congestion charge zone doubled in size with a westward expansion coming into force. The £8-a-day road toll scheme now takes in most of Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea in west London. 
West London residents are planning a demonstration against the new charge later on Monday. They believe it will damage businesses and cost residents hundreds of pounds a year. "Surveys indicate that of all areas adjacent to the zone, congestion is most intense in the west where there are severe delays throughout the working day." A spokesman for the National Alliance Against Tolls said: "This extension of the charge zone is a lose-lose situation for Londoners. It will increase congestion everywhere else including the existing zone."
Also, the UK government is running an on-line petition which has 1,600,000 signing-up to oppose the govenment (Government has a tough job!):

The idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong. Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay.
It will be an unfair tax on those who live apart from families and poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs.
Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion.
And how does all this relate the Lean Six Sigma? It raises the question, “How do you improve a situation where the improvement you believe in is diametrically opposed to the customer’s view?”]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:58:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Nayism Pandemic]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_nayism_pandemic.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 40:  The year-end financials are out and Company XYZ who is using Six Sigma didn’t do well.  Looks like Six Sigma is looking more like Sick Sigma.
It’s that time of year when Six Sigma naysayers turn to company year-end financial performance and try to lay blame on Six Sigma for companies that may not have ’made the numbers'.  The publicity is enough to cause a nayism pandemic in some circles.  Just how contagious is it?  Here’s what I say  . . .
Pointing fingers has always been a natural response to unwanted events.   But there is a notable difference between pointing fingers and actually diagnosing a root cause.  Fortunately, most business leaders have figured this out.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop Six Sigma naysayers from seizing the opportunity to spread nayisms at a rate that can redefine the word ’pandemic’.  For those of us who understand that "Six Sigma" is synonymous with the words "improving performance" and "increasing customer satisfaction", it just doesn’t make sense.  Let’s substitute these words in a typical nayism and see how it sounds.  "The reason our company didn’t do well last year is because we’ve been improving performance".   Try this one:  "The reason our company didn’t do well last year is because we’ve been increasing customer satisfaction."   Mind boggling isn’t it?
But regardless of any explanations, naysayers will always be on the sidelines ready and waiting to seize the opportunity where they can make a case (however weak) against Six Sigma and turning to a company’s financial performance is a great way to catch the eye of business leaders.  Will all this naysaying turn into a nayism pandemic or is there hope for a cure?
Companies with a strong commitment to continuously improve their business with Six Sigma will survive.  Their antibodies have been strengthened with doses of undeniable success that will serve to control the spread of nayism throughout their organization.
That being said, never underestimate the ability of naysayers to start a nayism pandemic in your company.  Always be ready and willing to acknowledge what is being printed in the media and use it as an opportunity to help people better understand the real issues.  Use Dilbert’s Six Sigma cartoons to your advantage by talking about the failure mode that the cartoon portrays and ways to prevent it (You can also have a  good laugh about it).  Letting naysayers go unchallenged is a sure way to fuel a nayism pandemic.  But don’t dwell on the nayism.  The best defense is a good offense and in this case, sharing the zillions of Six Sigma success stories can go a long way in keeping naysayers in check.
Remember - a shot of Six Sigma success a day will surely keep the naysayers away!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 04:18:42 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Off The Map]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/off_the_map.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you’ve read some of my previous blog entries, you’ll know I’m no fan of roadmaps. I used to think this was a radical proposition in the Six Sigma community. But more and more, when I talk to practitioners – the people on the ground who do the hands-on work of process improvement – I am finding that this opinion is perhaps not a minority view after all.
Yes, this is even true of DMAIC, the Lord’s Prayer of Six Sigma that is etched into Black Belt brains around the globe. And to be perfectly clear, I realize that in many places DMAIC is considered past its prime, having been supplanted by various Lean-Six Sigma hybrid roadmaps, or design roadmaps like IDOV and DMADV. To be fair to acronyms of all stripe, I’ll go on record and confess that it’s not any one specific roadmap I have an aversion to, it’s the use of roadmaps in general.
To be sure, roadmaps do have several advantages. They’re easy to teach. They lend themselves well to dashboard displays. They provide and easy point of reference for senior executives and other stakeholders. They make projects seem like they are progressing. And they’re a crutch, especially for beginners. But beyond this last point (which I’ll get to in a minute) I don’t think they’re especially useful for the people actually doing the work. In fact, in my experience, they lead to a lot of waste as folks “check off the box” on various tools in each stage of the roadmap as opposed to doing strictly what is necessary to advance the project. And on the flipside, they let people get away without thinking through the best approach for themselves. Think of it this way: the roadmap is an a priori answer to the question of “how should this project be done” that utterly ignores variation in circumstances. For the life of me, I can’t understand why we as a community believe it’s going to be the right answer in more than a few lucky cases.
Then again, maybe we don’t believe it. When I’ve asked around, I’ve found that projects that truly follow a roadmap are far and few between. This is puzzling, given the standard Six Sigma dogma. But it has been my experience that the vast majority of good work going on out there involved subverting whatever roadmap it’s supposed to be following. Experienced Black Belts regularly skip stages, do them out of order, repeat them, and add new ones of their own invention. Master Black Belts speak in hushed tones about projects that succeeded after a simple visual display of data showed what changes needed to be made. Green Belts sometimes find that they need to work on the measurement system again after doing some “improve” work. Gasp!
My point is that disregard for roadmaps is an open secret. Turns out my views are probably within the distribution after all. Given this is the case, what I can’t figure out is why roadmaps are still peddled so aggressively in the Six Sigma community. If every project is an exception to the process, why are we still teaching the process? Why not embrace the freedom of a non-roadmap approach?
Don’t get me wrong: I love organizing concepts for continuous improvement work, and understand the necessity of having something more than a random collection of tools. I’m especially enamored of iterative models like the scientific method and PDCA. (Even DMAIC becomes a lot more palatable to me if we admit MAI are likely to iterate along parallel paths between D and C, but that’s a pretty messy acronym.) But beyond that, I think what we ought to be doing is encouraging folks to understand data: collection, display, analysis, uses and abuses of data. We ought to be encouraging them to think for themselves what sequence of steps are necessary to get through a project, what data are required, and how those data should be collected and analyzed. And if we want folks to truly get good at this, I contend that handing them roadmaps when they start out hinders rather than helps the journey.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 04:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Root-cause effects]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/root_cause_effects.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Because I’m currently reviewing the materials on cause and effect I seem to be noticing it everywhere, I wonder why? Either way finding root-causes is an essential part of my job and I have a wealth of tools available such as Ishikawa diagrams, correlation, regression models, DOE and multivariate charts. In reviewing the on-line materials I discovered the limits of my understanding here and plan to stick with this for some more time. 
But what struck me was not the ability to discover a root cause but people’s reaction to its discovery. There seem to be a range of responses and here are some examples.
“Well of course that’s the root-cause, you should have asked me”In the morning when I wake-up it gets light. After many months of careful record keeping I have discovered a perfect correlation with the appearance of the Sun. By using Occam’s razor I propose that the Sun is the root-cause! 
“By the time I’m old they’ll have a cure”Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death and 87% of lung cancer deaths can be attributed to tobacco use. SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
“I doubt the root cause it’s a natural phenomena”Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 ° in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” The main cause is the increased atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
“Its cheaper to address the rework”“I agree with the results but the real issue is .....”“You can’t measure peoples behaviour with statistics”“This report really hit the spot, I’ll let you know”
Sometimes, "We need to fix this immediately" So for all the sense of accomplishment in making the fundamental discovery, it’s just a part of the job. It also includes persuading and gaining other peoples support and driving the decision making process.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:41:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Statisticism]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/statisticism.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After an extended holiday from the blog and from work in general, I have to say I’m glad to be back. I hope everyone out there in isixsigma land enjoyed the season as much as I did.
I started a project in the U.K. this week. I’m fascinated by the differences in culture one finds when one travels outside his or her home territory and I always make point of watching the local news to try and gain insight into the top concerns of the locals. This trip has proven to be particularly interesting relative to such observations.
Most Americans are probably familiar with reality television and some are certainly viewers of a show titled “Big Brother”. If you’re not familiar with this show, its premise is to assemble a group of strangers in a house and have them engage in a strange sort of competition to see who can outlast the others. While I’m not a viewer of the American version of the show, the U.K. version got my attention this week as it has created a firestorm of controversy. It seems one of the contestants made some derisive remarks about a housemate who is Indian. The comments have drawn cries of protest across Britain, provoked street marches in India, and even created a political rift to which both Indian and British government officials have been forced to respond. Having heard the comments I certainly think they were inappropriate but the ignorant and perhaps prejudicial comments of a single individual on a reality television show hardly strike me as justifiable cause for an international “racism” crisis. It’s TV people, get a grip on yourselves!
What is most fascinating about this is the thought that while it appears easy to get the international community stirred up about an issue based on a single incident, we never see protests when bad statistics are used in the media, or most anywhere else for that matter. 
First of all, it strikes me as incredible that we’re continuously bombarded with the notion that singular events apply universally to the entire population. Such extrapolation can be seen on news channels world wide on most any given day. Ice melts in Antarctica and we’re all told we’ll be overcome by the rising tide of global warming in a matter of years. One prejudiced remark, on a television show designed to create strife between contestants, and suddenly the whole country is labeled racist. Based on reports, I guess we can safely assume the record snows in the Western U.S. this year indicate the ice age is upon us; right?
And what about correlation? Does an increase in the number of shark bites off the coast of Florida indicate that sharks have developed a taste for human flesh? Or could it be that sharks have always been there and now that more people are entering the water annually, we have more shark bites. Better yet, maybe the species is determined to exact revenge for not being paid royalties from the movie “Jaws”. 
The point is, why do we always have to have a fantastic explanation for events which are most often quite within the range of probability for a given set of circumstances? I guess the proliferation of news channels competing for advertising dollars drives the sensationalism but they only sell what the general public is willing to buy. Maybe the answer is to design TV’s that require a 15 minute math lesson when you turn them on before you can move on to other programming. Or maybe we just need to turn off the television altogether. After all, statistics confirm that everyone who watches TV will die.
Who will join me in this battle against Statisticism? Let’s coordinate events in cities across the country and burn our remote controls in effigy. Even better, write in to the blog with your statistical abuse stories. We should at least make an effort to share a chuckle over the matter.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[W. Michael McBride]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:30:14 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Dilbert on the Fusion of Lean and Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/dilbert_on_the_fusion_of_lean_and_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[He’s at it again. But this time I laughed out loud, I’m sorry to report. 
What are your thoughts?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:44:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Minitab User Group]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/minitab_user_group.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As part of becoming an MBB I need to really understand statistics. I spend a lot of my own time studying and use Minitab to support this. But I was surprised to find there was no Minitab User Group where I could meet like-minded people to share my experiences and accelerate my learning.
So I thought, why not start one? But of course it can only work if there is an equal level of demand from other practitioners. To test this I thought I would introduce the idea here. If you are interested in becoming a founding member of an independent and not-for-profit Minitab User Group then please read on.
The Minitab User Group will be for people who use Minitab as part of Six Sigma or for statistics in general. It will exist to expand the knowledge of the people involved. This can be from informal web site discussions, through sharing and using on-line resources, to attending user group workshops &amp; training events. 
As a user group member you will be able to interface with like-minded specialists working in different areas and organisations. To support the widest range of members, subjects will be geared around the Minitab product. For example, the section on Statistical Process Controls will include tutorials, workbooks &amp; projects, articles &amp; links and industry specific content. 
Although independent, the user group will actively work with Minitab for the benefit of our members. A close working relationship provides a chance to offer direct feedback on products and services plus a chance for Minitab to update and assist our members. Minitab fully endorses this intuitive.
The intention is the user group will be funded principally by member’s subscriptions, plus possible donations from others. This means activities will be geared to the amount of money available. It is noted that those setting up the organisation will not receive any remuneration except for out-of-pocket costs, like postage and phone calls. 
Does this interest you? Would you like to get involved in setting-up the Minitab User Group and defining its direction? Please make contact by e-mail, info@minitabusergroup.com to get involved.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:30:06 -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: Six Sigma Saves the Fortune 500 $427 Billion]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_saves_the_fortune_500_427_billion.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Let me introduce you to the iSixSigma published report, Six Sigma Saves a Fortune.  Featured in the January/February issue of iSixSigma Magazine. The research is sure to interest the entire Six Sigma community – advocates as well as naysayers.  
Press release:

“Over the past 20 years, use of Six Sigma, the popular business improvement methodology, has saved Fortune 500 companies an estimated $427 billion, according to research published in the January/February 2007 issue of iSixSigma Magazine.
“The estimate is based on reported savings linked to Six Sigma in public documents.  "Our data also showed that corporate-wide Six Sigma deployments save an average 2 percent of total revenue per year," added Michael Marx, research manager for iSixSigma.”
We have real numbers that estimate Six Sigma savings to be quite significant.  A management philosophy that has saved nearly a half a trillion dollars at Fortune 500 companies alone since 1987 is quite an accomplishment.  
So if you’ve been reading the negative press Six Sigma has been getting lately (Fortune article, Dilbert comic, and the recent WSJ article) don’t be too quick to judge Six Sigma.  Let these savings numbers speak for themselves.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:10:51 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Reports of Our Demise]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/reports_of_our_demise.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Okay, okay. I know this has already been covered to death in other blogs and various discussion forums. But I am nonetheless compelled to offer my own take on the Wall Street Journal’s article concerning the departure of Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli. And more specifically on the comments within that article suggesting that this is a substantial example of Six Sigma “not panning out as promised.”
The article prominently cites a study conducted by QualPro Inc. Before I get started, I’ll freely admit I haven’t read the study. I couldn’t find it on their website, or anywhere else online. (If anyone knows where to get it, please let me know.) So, I’ll have to rely on the words of the article’s author to describe it:

“Now QualPro Inc., a company that markets a competing process-management technique, has issued a study comparing the stock performance of companies that adopted Six Sigma with the performance of the Standard &amp; Poor’s 500-stock index. QualPro has done work for Lowe’s Cos., Home Depot’s main competitor. 
“Given that the study was issued by a Six Sigma competitor, it isn’t surprising that the comparisons aren’t flattering.”
They go on:

“A number of former GE executives -- including W. James McNerney Jr., former CEO of 3M Co.; Dave Cote, CEO of Honeywell International Inc.; and Mr. Nardelli -- helped spread the Six Sigma word but have seen their companies’ stock prices lag.
“Since announcing the adoption of Six Sigma on July 1, 2001, Home Depot shares are down 8.3% compared with a 16% rise in the S&amp;P 500 over the same period. The stock rose more than 2% yesterday on the New York Stock Exchange, to $41.07, after Mr. Nardelli’s resignation.
“Honeywell shares are down 7.2% since its Six Sigma announcement in early January 2000, compared with a 3.6% fall in the S&amp;P 500. Shares of 3M are off about 1% since late December 2003 versus the S&amp;P 500’s 29% climb. GE shares rose sharply in the 1990s, but they’re down 16% since July 2000, when the company adopted Six Sigma, compared with the 2.6% fall in the S&amp;P 500.”
First of all, I know I speak for most of us when I howl: correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. There’s enough material for several blog entries here, but I’ll restrain myself because there are more interesting things to quibble with here. For example, what to make of this?

“Of the 58 companies reviewed in the QualPro report, 52 underperformed the S&amp;P 500 index from the time they launched their Six Sigma programs through Dec. 5, 2006. Other underperformers include Lockheed Martin Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Xerox Corp.”
Yet the George group claims on their website that “our client index has tripled in value while the S&amp;P 500 has declined.” Further, on the back cover of this month’s iSixSigma magazine you can see their data indicating that “George Group clients outperform all major indices.” Presumably a large portion of those clients deployed Six Sigma. So what does it all mean? Is Six Sigma a good thing or a bad thing for stock price? George Group and QualPro both cite Xerox as an example – what are we to take from that? The point is, it’s impossible to tell. I’ve no doubt that QualPro and George Group both used accurate data analyzed correctly. And yet they report diametrically opposite conclusions. Clearly what was measured and how it was measured must be different, but none of that nuance is communicated. Again, there are several blogs’ worth of questions to ponder here.
More importantly, neither study asks the more interesting question, which is: what would the stock price of these companies have done over the period of the study if they had not deployed Six Sigma? And that’s a question that we can’t answer, because it requires an experiment that’s impossible to run. No one understands Y=f(x) for stock price (at least, no one worth less than 10 figures), so talking about single data points collected on a single x for a particular company doesn’t carry much weight. And given the massive differences company-to-company, I’m not sure aggregating 50 different companies together in a single study is any better. It just sounds better to the casual reader.
While I’m on the subject of QualPro, I found some of the statements on their website, um, interesting. For example, they say:

“Most of us were taught that the optimum process for gaining knowledge is to test one-thing-at-a-time and hold everything else constant. It is called the scientific method. MVT® (Multivariable Testing) proves that the scientific method doesn’t really work in the real world.”
I feel compelled to point out that the scientific method has been around for about 2900 years. Has QualPro suddenly discovered something that minor logicians like Aristotle, Descartes, and Gödel missed? Can QualPro seriously believe what they are saying? It’s ridiculous. In a sense they win by default, because I can’t even formulate a cogent argument to the contrary. It’s like trying to box with a swamp vapor – you can’t hit a bad smell. 
And don’t even get me started on marketing multi-variate testing as “better” than Six Sigma. What decent program doesn’t include muti-variate where appropriate? As for equating OFAT with the scientific method, I’m personally insulted by the comparison. What is it about the induction/deduction cycle that precludes testing more than one variable at a time? Nothing. The scientific method says nothing about how to go from induction to deduction. DOE or “MVT” is a great way to go. Fine, promote MVT, but why denigrate the scientific method to do it? MVT and the scientific method are perfectly compatible.
Finally, just to continue being picky, despite QualPro’s claims to the contrary you can learn about interactions via OFAT experimentation. If you don’t believe me, believe Daniel:

Factorial One-Factor-at-a-Time Experiments Cuthbert DanielThe American Statistician, Vol. 48, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 132-135doi:10.2307/2684266
In the end though, I guess none of this matters because:

“QualPro’s proprietary Multivariable Testing (MVT®) system uses more complex mathematics than is used in a Polaris Missile.”
Boy, I can’t think of a better reason to adopt a continuous improvement methodology than that.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: You are better than Toyota]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/you_are_better_than_toyota.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[People only jump when they are pushed. Kotter in his book Leading Change (1994) talks about creating the "Burning Platform". My mental image of this burning platform is a team of guys and / or gals on a burning oil rig knowing the oil rig is going to sink but only jumping into the murky depths of the sea when they feel the heat of the flames. 
The car industry is permanently on the burning oil rig platform or in the sea. There is no greater burning platform than the competitiveness of the car manufacturing sector where complacency, will lead to huge financial losses and even Bankruptcy. ‘Rover’, can you believe was the third biggest car manufacturer in the world in the late 1960s. That’s like Ford going bust today! 
Until you have these market forces or artificially create the illusion of them, your Six Sigma deployment will never be priority within your business. 
The real art is for your deployment to flourish even when you have very little competition (or even a virtual monopoly like I have on the railways), when it takes all your powers of persuasion especially when your team members do not work for you to drive through change and when you do not always have the data or even the processes in place. If you can get projects to completion and save money in this environment then you can argue that in many ways you are better than Toyota.
In my next blog I will talk about PBL Performance Based Leadership (based on behavioural science) which our deployment have driven as a philosophy alongside the DMAIC methodology to help create an illusion of "The Burning Platform".]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:15:28 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Exactly What About Six Sigma Doesn't Work?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/exactly_what_about_six_sigma_doesnt_work.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 38:  Six Sigma doesn’t work.   Just look at the Fortune 500 . . . yada . . . yada . . . yada. . .blah . . .blah . . blah
After reading yet another Six Sigma bashing news article, I find it interesting that intelligent people are publishing the kind of gibberish that naysayers all over the world have been dreaming of.   But after all the naying and blah, blah, blah, exactly what about Six Sigma won’t work?  Here’s what I say  . . .
Let’s see, define the problem, measure it, analyze data to develop solutions, improve the process and make sure the improvement sticks.  Sounds like a good approach to me.  Maybe it’s the execution.  Selecting a project that supports corporate objectives, using a cross-functional team made up of process experts and gathering input from the customer.   Nope - no issues here.    Right then, maybe it’s the data driven decision-making or the methodology’s ability to fix long standing problems.  No - not a problem either.
So what are all these naysayers complaining about and exactly what about Six Sigma doesn’t work?  Is there any substance or reality to their concerns or are they just the "Captain Hook" in a bad rendition of "Adventures in Sigmaland".  Maybe these naysayers just need a mommy.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:24:28 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Another way of looking at things...]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/another_way_of_looking_at_things.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From a building in the centre of Glasgow a team continues to grow, spread and populate one of the world’s largest financial institutions. The team is ours, the mission (which we duly accepted) was to change the way things were done, to build and prepare for growth and to change an embedded culture of ‘that’s the way it’s always been’. 
Now, 2 years since inception, the comforting arms of Six Sigma change are morphing the team into a machine of financially prioritised change work which, although valid in today’s dog eat dog world, I personally have to ask the question – “how long can it last?” 
I mean, is Six Sigma change a large scale cost cutting exercise hidden under a veil of due process or is it a vehicle of full scale change in corporate culture? The question is one I, personally, believe is tending towards the former…and that is not a good thing! 
I believe the children are the future…oops, sorry wrong blog…ahem… 
I will admit, I am not a capitalist and have a tendency to show attributes that are sometimes described as idealistic or even ‘hippy’ but I know I’m not the only one that is beginning to believe that many Six Sigma deployments (for reasons of diplomacy I will not mention if our deployment is included in this statement) are missing their opportunity to change a business not from the account book but from the heads of the people contributing to the account book. 
A guy called Robert Dilts produced a model of change called the Neuro-Logical levels (based on earlier work by Gregory Bateson). This model explained how to produce the most profound change in individuals and groups of individuals. Now, the more I study this model and the more I hear about Six Sigma deployments, the fewer I realise are doing anything that is going to create the easily maintainable, long term change in an organisation that our jobs as BBs are initially created for. 
The model itself is structured as a hierarchy and I have reproduced it in its most basic format below:  
Spirituality Identity  Beliefs  Capabilities Behaviour Environment 
In summary of the model, to generate change in any given individual or group of individuals you can change their environment and it will work. For example, I know as BBs we have probably all been involved in producing trackers, posters, dashboards, team positioning etc. and it will work for a while...but eventually the old behaviours will start again because you’ve not changed them. So you can change the behaviour, change processes, remove steps, build systems and you will see the team themselves begin to change their environment to fit their new behaviours…excellent stuff, but it doesn’t change the fact if a group or individual is not capable to do a task then they will not perform. And so we can change the capabilities of a team/organisation through training and hiring new staff…I’m sure you’re getting the idea now - the higher up the hierarchy you go the longer lasting and more pervasive the change. 
Now we get into the tough stuff and where I believe the Six Sigma that I have witnessed lacks its real punch. How do we go about changing the beliefs of an organisation or even the identity of an organisation when all our targets, leadership and drive are coming from affecting the bottom line of the hierarchy – the financial environment. If we, as change professionals, want to create change in our organisations we have to start affecting the belief systems and corporate and team identities that hold our businesses back only then can we claim to be purveyors of long term change to an organisation. 
This is easier said than done. To make this type of change we need time, training, and strong leadership. We need the skills to inspire as well as manage. We cannot run a Chi-Square on a lack of belief or a confused corporate identity! I’ve got my ideas on some of the approaches we can take and I’ll stick up a post in a couple of weeks time as I’m hoping that this post may spark some debate. As a side note - if you have a way to bring Spirituality to your organisation through Six Sigma then go ahead however that may be taking it a step too far!! 
I believe Six Sigma is a great model for change. However, I also believe, if Six Sigma wants to survive, it has to evolve and I don’t know if it has the will or the want to do that. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, my questions remains ‘How long can it last?’ 
Happy New Year.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Brian Costello]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:57:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Mainstream]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/mainstream.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Middle manager of a mid-sized business with an average market share makes a New Year’s resolution, “I must improve our performance!”. Hits the Internet to discover what’s out there and is absolutely bombarded with the latest thinking and best practise in how to improve their business.
KISS…4P…5P…Burning platform…Blue Ocean…7S…PRINCE2…MBWA….Seven Habits…CMMi…Governance…Scenario Planning…Six Sigma….Innovation…Kotler…Activity Based Costing…Balanced Scorecard…Six Hats…ITIL….Results 1 - 10 of about 9,340,000
Given the number of options, it should come as no surprise that without clear executive sponsorship, managers looking for “home-grown” solutions could be reluctant to invest any time in Lean Six Sigma. There are any number of good reasons not to get involved. Gianna is currently on reason number 37 and still counting!
Even if they focussed on continuous improvement there is a lot to choose from e.g. Lean, Six Sigma, ISO, MBNQA, TRIZ, TPS, EFQM, TOC, TQM ….no, this is all too complex, not today thank you, I’ve got some fire-fighting to do!
Name a soft drink, quality automobile, or MP3-player and it brings to mind an immediate response. I think we have achieved a high degree of customer mind share. But in what categories should Lean Six Sigma hold mind share? Product Launch; Business Strategy; Performance Management, Innovation, Profit? 
Our technology is proven and the tools work. It seems a question of marketing. I’m reminded of the early works of Geoffrey Moore like Crossing the Chasm. How do you cross the chasm from being a product used by selected niches and specialist areas into a de facto business tool?

Product Adoption Curve
The move into mainstream is about making Lean Six Sigma easy to do business with. One aspect of this is standardisation. I will draw on a couple of examples from the IT industry. 


During the nineties there were a series of competing approaches to software engineering. Adoption of modelling techniques was slow as customers were not sure which methodology to back. The resolution was the creation of a single industry standard Universal Modelling Language (UML).

Again in the nineties there were a series of competing approaches to networking. Customers could base their networks on technology such as token-ring, IPX/SPX, DECNet, NetBEUI, SNA or TCP/IP. Now the industry has settled on TCP/IP.
This relentless standardisation has continued in spreadsheets, word processors, operating systems, databases, and ERP systems. Mainstream customers like a dominant player (800lb gorilla) with a second choice in case they fall-out with the gorilla.
Another aspect is simplification (I discovered there is a Six Sigma for Dummies). Mainstream customers like simple messages and easy to follow processes. What would constitute the core of Lean Six Sigma without affecting integrity? Would it be suitable for a mainstream audience?
I believe an industry designed “Sigma Lite” that is ratified by say ISO would be a step in the right direction for customer adoption. This would draw on all best practice (including ISO 9004) to produce a cut-down version for the mainstream. 
Of course every consultancy will challenge this to describe how they are better than the average. Not sure if the Six Sigma Green Belt is already the lowest level of abstraction to support continuous improvement? ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:23:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Touching the Fire]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/touching_the_fire.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We all want to get it right the first time. And a brief browse through the business section of any major bookstore, or even various sections of this website, will turn up hundreds of best practices and other bits of advice that promise to help us get it right the first time. Consultants would never get the job unless the promised they could help us get it right the first time. Who would hire an expert that gruffly suggested we all muddle through it together, and promised only that we’d learn from our mistakes and get there somehow? There is tremendous desire and pressure to get it right, right away. Even though this almost never happens in real life, there is a negative stigma associated with failing to cite it as our target.
“It” can be just about anything in business, but let’s stick to Six Sigma deployment. We all want to have a perfect program, preferably right out of the gate. At the very least we want one that is better than that of our (internal and external) competitors. And we certainly don’t want to make the same mistakes that others have made. We want to benchmark, learn from the experts, and use established best practices to ensure that our deployment is smooth and successful right from the start. Right?
Well, maybe not.
Every single Six Sigma deployment success story I’ve ever heard and believe to be true involves a significant period of fumbling. Many of them have full-blown episodes of tremendous counter-productivity. The most entertaining involve heated disagreements and intrigue worthy of a king’s court. Programs that thrash and flail like a drowning man are not at all uncommon. Idiocy is not unheard of. But nonetheless, these truly are success stories in every sense of the phrase. These are programs that are strong and productive today at companies we have all heard of, big and small.
While it’s tempting to believe that these programs are successful in spite of the trials and tribulations they have gone through, I am increasingly of the opinion that they are successful because of those trials and tribulations.
Best practices are informative, and we should learn from them where we can. But by definition, they are solutions for problems encountered elsewhere. If company A runs into a problem or opportunity and finds a way to profit from it, it does not immediately follow that company B can apply the same solution and be successful with it. In my opinion this is widely misunderstood: the best practice is not what company A did, it is how company A decided what to do. Put another way, the best practice should not be the solution itself, but rather the method of developing the solution. Not the outcome, but the structure of the struggle.
The struggling, in my opinion, is unavoidable. As an analogy, a central tenet of change management is that resistance positive insofar as it is a sign that change is occurring. The longer you avoid resistance the longer you put off true change. The sooner you embrace it an deal with it, the sooner you can move on to a new state. I think the same thing is true of many of the struggles encountered in even the best planned Six Sigma deployments. It is precisely those struggles that catalyze the necessary learning by the organization. I’m not quite ready to suggest that we should intentionally create difficulties, but maybe that’s just my own timidity. Maybe touching the fire earlier and more often in a deployment would get us to the desired end faster. At the very least, I no longer believe we should put a lot of energy into avoiding the messy bits – it never works in the long run anyway, and only delays the inevitable.
As an example, take project selection. Every deployment I’ve been associated with has had significant angst around what projects to work on, how to select them, who works on them, etc, etc. These are classic deployment questions. And despite reams of advice and best practices galore, I still find the most efficient way to find the “right” answer for a site/plant/business/division/group/company is simply to pick some method and give it a try. No matter what the first iteration is, intelligent people disagree about its efficacy and execution, sometimes loudly. So discussions are had, flowcharts altered, criteria changed, and a new iteration develops. And this repeats until a workable solution develops. Is it messy? Yes. Is it painful? Yep. Does it work? Every time.
I don’t want to construe these observations as license to deploy without careful thought and planning. Without significant vigilance and strong guidance the mess stays a mess. But I do think many deployment leaders (me included) tend to shoot for perfection instead of simply reaching out to touch the fire now and then. Minor burns heal quickly, after all.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Heres To A Great 2007!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/heres_to_a_great_2007.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(Continued from "Lean Journeys - Part 2")
Another year is upon us, and it’s time to look forward to new challenges and frontiers. It has been a while, and I will finally finish my thought on going lean from back in October! (Thanks for bearing with me - please refer back to "Lean Journeys - Part 2" as a refresher).
Bottom line - by proper batch-sizing, the stamping operation went from being a 7 day operation to a 5.5 day operation. This allowed us to concentrate our focus on continuous improvements as far as changeover time, and uptime, without shorting our customers. Of course, by doing the batch sizing optimization, we weren’t lean. We were in a better position to get lean. As we made improvements in changeover, we reduced our min-max levels gradually. We found that that was the optimum way to go, while still supplying our customer (assembly area) with componenets.
There was resistance in expanding the batch sizes, as this was counterintuitive to lean thinking. It was a little bit of a struggle to show how this short term "hit" could be the means to the end (of being leaner). I really tried to show how important it was to keep the customer supplied in the short-term, while making improvements to help the long term.
Best of luck to everyone. Have a safe and prosperous 2007!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 22:15:39 -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: Six Sigma Decorations]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_decorations.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last year for the holidays I wrote about Amazon and their Six Sigma efforts.  This year let me introduce you to a much smaller store, yet still striving for Six Sigma.
The Christmas Decorations &amp; Gifts Store endeavors to spread Christmas cheer and customer delight to their patrons by practicing Six Sigma.  From their website:

“We are dedicated to making this Christmas web site your favorite sight for all your seasonal needs. We hope that our web site will make your Christmas activities more enjoyable and meaningful. Christmas Decorations and Gifts Store has spent endless hours to make this web sight easy to use and browse through. We strive to exceed six sigma philosophies in our warehousing and shipping processes.
“When ordering Christmas decorations a missed quantity or missed delivery date is almost as bad as not receiving the order at all. The correct Christmas items must be delivered on time to the proper customer address. Any mistake is almost unforgivable. Realizing that this is the case Christmas Decorations &amp; Gifts Store is utilizing some of the practices and techniques of World Class companies. Among these is the application of the philosophy of six sigma. 
With six sigma the objective is to understand our processes so well that the chances of a defect (a six sigma mistake) are less than 3.4 per million. We feel that customers are the only people who can determine if a mistake has been made. Our customer delight is our life blood.”]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:20:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: e-Zsigma Interviews Santa Claus]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/e_zsigma_interviews_santa_claus.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The ghost of Christmas past pointed me to this interview with no other than the man himself – Santa Claus.  Rod Morgan of e-Zsigma was fortunate enough to meet Santa and ask him all the details surrounding Six Sigma at the North Pole.  
Below is an excerpt where Santa describes how Six Sigma was brought in to complement current Lean Manufacturing practices:

News: "You mentioned earlier that Six Sigma was brought in to complement your existing Lean Manufacturing practices.  How was this integration accomplished and did you get any resistance from the Elf workforce?"
Santa: "To be honest, as if I could be anything but, there was quite a lot of skepticism at first.  Lean had worked for us - we had seen improvements in terms of efficiency with the elimination of a lot of waste and cycle time reduction, and our people were tired.  Implementing Lean had been a big project for us and happened over several years - in fact, it is still going on... it never stops.  We had a choice, in that we could have brought in Six Sigma tools and methodology as an add-on to Lean... disguised as additional training or something like that.  But, we felt that if we did that, we might not be successful in lighting the fire that we know is required for Six Sigma to really take hold and drive results.  We wanted people to know that there was something new in the air, and it was different, yet complimentary to what we were already doing.  I think everyone realized that something was still missing, since even with Lean, we were still having problems... bottlenecks, quality problems, frustration... What we didn’t know at the time... something we learned a little bit later, is that we didn’t have right tools that really allowed us to focus on variation."
To learn more about the Six Sigma and Lean initiatives at the North Pole read the entire interview!  
e-Zsigma December 2003 Newsletter, Six Sigma SpotLight: Santa Claus, CEO Polar Enterprises Inc. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:30:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What Naysayers Want for Christmas . . .]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_naysayers_want_for_christmas___.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Believe it or not, naysayers all over the world are frantically writing letters to Santa.  So what are they asking for?   Here’ the top 10 list:
Number 10:  Two dozen "Just Say No" buttons
Number 9:  Ten pounds of stinky cheese to go with their ’whine’
Number 8:  A "Harry Potter" invisibility cloak to help them move about the office undetected.
Number 7:  A look-alike inflatable doll to act as their stand-in at Green Belt training
Number 6:  2007 edition of "Naysayers Guide to the Galaxy"  (also known as "The Road to No-where")
Number 5:  An electronic voice changer gadget so that they can claim that it was someone else who actually said the nayism
Number 4:  A universal language translator so that they can learn how to say "I’m too busy" in 87 languages.
Number 3:  Eye glasses with pictures of eyeballs pasted in the lens so that it looks like they are paying attention at project report-outs.
Number 2:  Pre-recorded voice cards that say "It won’t work" to leave at their desk while they are on vacation to make sure nothing accidentally gets improved while they are gone.
Number 1:  A one year supply of botox treatments to eliminate wrinkles caused by frowning about Six Sigma
To all my friends at the blogosphere and especially to all the naysayers out there who give me a reason to blog - Happy Holidays!   
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:29:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Santa's Six Sigma Delivery]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/santas_six_sigma_delivery.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To better acquaint their employees with Six Sigma, the Y-12 National Security Complex published the following story in their January 2002 employee newsletter.  
Bechtel Shares a Six Sigma Parable

You may have heard about the most recent process improvement initiative, Six Sigma, which is taking off like wild fire around America. Corporate giants like Motorola, General Electric, Allied Signal and Bechtel are embracing this new approach to work process improvements with enthusiasm and the results have been staggering.
Not to be outdone by the lower 48 states, Santa Claus has rolled out his own Six Sigma deployment to help satisfy the global demands of his customers. Kids throughout the world expect their gifts to arrive no later than 6 a.m. Christmas morning so that playtime can be maximized with the newly acquired toys. In recent years, Santa has been hard pressed to deliver the ‘goods’ by 6 a.m., December 25. But 2001 was different.
Early in June, Santa Claus assigned his Yellow Belt elves to map their own work processes and measure key cycle times, durations, and rejection rates. With his Champion, Mrs. Claus, Santa developed a high-level flow chart to illustrate all the key functions necessary to satisfy his young customers. With the data collected and summarized in a Pareto chart, Santa determined that the most critical and time consuming work activity is finding the correct gift stored in his sled for kids like Johnny in Portland and Jane in Seattle. The data indicated that 80 percent of Santa’s work time was spent rummaging around in his sled for the right gift during his delivery run on Christmas Eve.
Furthermore, incorrect gift delivery of more than 33 percent has led to many very unhappy customers in years past. Santa quickly assigned his resident Black Belt elf to work on the Process Improvement Project (PIP) that would improve the toy delivery system to ensure timely and accurate delivery.
By September, the Black Belt, working with the Yellow Belt process owner and other subject matter experts, had further reviewed the work process. 
Additional data was then collected, and the Black Belt applied statistical hypothesis testing to confirm the suspicion that toy positioning in Santa’s sled did indeed affect Santa’s ability to efficiently deliver the right toy to the children of the world. The PIP team quickly developed an Improve Plan, requiring that a sequential delivery listing be developed prior to packing Santa’s sled. With this list in hand, the elves were then instructed to reverse-pack the sled in the order of delivery.
Furthermore, each gift was labeled with the name and location of the child. The Yellow Belt then implemented the approved Control Plan to periodically check the sled’s packing sequence and confirm that all packages were properly labeled.
Santa declared victory on Christmas Day, when all the children of the world had the correct gifts in time for their early wake-up schedules.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:15:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Acceleration]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/acceleration.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Consider a Lean Six Sigma programme with a number of projects in-flight. It’s a good mix of projects with varying delivery-timescales and range of benefits. Projects are run by dedicated black belts who manage the DMAIC phases in the waterfall approach. Its what you might call the “standard” approach to delivery.

The customer couldn’t care less about DMAIC they want benefits delivered quickly. So how could we shorten the average delivery life cycle by say 20%?
Before I go build a VSM, gather the facts and find the root-causes, I wondered if anyone has already looked at this?
Couple of immediate thoughts comes to mind, (aaarrrggghhh solution-mode!). 
What if you moved people around projects to clear blockages (TOC)?
What if you created specialist silos for the various phases something like:

Define Team: - Own the project hopper; can develop a project charter in under two-days; well skilled at building realistic benefits picture
Measure Team: - Could get data out of a stone; have deep understanding of interviewing and surveys; own the enterprise process model
Analysis Team: - Centre of excellence for analytics and statistics; develop clear insights and root-causes
Improve Team: - Push the envelope; think outside the box; lateral but pragmatic
Control Team: - Well versed in baking improvements into a business and realising benefits.
Please let me know if this has already been solved.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:11:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Change Agent]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/change_agent.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One of the main reasons I signed-up to Lean Six Sigma was because I had discovered a great set of tools to help me deliver change quicker &amp; better. Through my training I wondered how I had survived so long without sampling &amp; confidence intervals, SPC’s, regression and FMEA. Being able to look at a trend chart and understand that a couple of percent improvement can be statistically insignificant was a real revelation.
But I was wary of was being labelled a black belt. Not because of the negative spin from the naysayers. But because it would imply I was limiting my options for delivering change to only Lean Six Sigma. To me it was a toolset not a life-style.
Now I have been on the job for a couple of years has my view changed? 
Well change continues to come in all shapes and sizes. Some basic definitions include:

Strategic change - where you realign your business against changing external factors e.g. new competitors and break through technology. This tends to cause widespread change e.g. business acquisitions or the launch of new products. 
Organisational change - where you realign your people to meet your strategic objectives e.g. developing an off-shore model or moving from field to web-based sales. We tend to term these business transformations.
Process change - where you deliver continuously improving processes e.g. meeting cost control targets or improving customer satisfaction. 
These types of change are happening all the time in our business and what I have definitely found is DMAIC/DFSS cannot be shoehorned into every situation. But I suspect you all knew that anyway. What I have found is two of the underlying principles help shape how react to new business issues. 
First is “what are the facts”. I don’t rush into solution-mode anywhere near as much as I used to. 
Second is “its not what I want to deliver, its what does the customer want”. Its very easy to think about how a new product or process should be designed from the process owners perspective. The discipline is in understanding what the customer wants.
Still not keen on the “black belt” label but I do like the handle “change agent”.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:02:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Finish Line]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_finish_line.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been wrestling lately with the question of when a Six Sigma project should be considered “done”. From the perspective of the organization, it’s common to say that done means finished through the control phase or it’s equivalent, including process changes or other implemented solutions. From the financial perspective it’s tempting to say that done means solutions have been implemented, controls put in place, and savings documented for some pre-defined period of time.
But from the perspective of the Black Belt (or whomever is leading the project to begin with), these answers often don’t make sense. Rarely will the Black Belt have the knowledge, authority, or resources to implement and monitor process changes, or the bandwidth to stick around for a year to make sure that the dollars flow as expected. One could argue that perhaps the world would be a better place if Black Belts were truly accountable for these things, but in practice it is usually a process owner and/or finance rep who are responsible for ensuring that changes stick and dollars flow. And given what they are trained to do, we probably want Black Belts moving on to new projects anyway. Instead, we seem to be moving the finish line farther and farther away, and keeping Black Belts involved in more and more things.
For example, consider a classic Six Sigma project aimed at reducing scrap and increasing throughput on a high-volume manufacturing line. Any competent Black Belt ought to be able to do the basic work of defining and measuring, then using statistical techniques to sample and understand the process, and finally running the experiments necessary to arrive at a proposed solution. But if that solution involves re-training the operators, installing new measurement equipment, and reducing changeover times, then the Black Belt is probably the last person I’d want handling the implementation. Give me the process owner, a good trainer, a capital engineer, and an experienced SMED expert to do that. If that Black Belt is all of those things, fine. But in the other 99% of cases, I think a hand-off is by far the best path forward. Even if the Black Belt is accountable for these things on paper (as is often the case), in reality it seldom works out that way for successful projects.
In fact, once a Black Belt arrives at a proposed solution, I’d argue that there’s usually little “Six Sigma work” left to be done. More often that not the change to be implemented involves other tools and skill sets like SMED, Lean, kaizen blitzes, cellularization, training or re-training, capital installations, etc, etc, etc. And given that’s the case, there’s almost always a better person or group than the Black Belt to get it done. Let the Black Belt move on to another opportunity where Six Sigma skills are needed. Why train people up on one thing and then devote them to another?
One answer to this problem is to try to make Black Belts experts at, well, everything. Hence the proliferation of various hyphenated and hybrid techniques (DFLSS with an extra week for change management, anyone?). And as a result, we get what seems like a never-ending curriculum creep: 40 hours online plus five weeks in class for Black Belt isn’t uncommon anymore, and both the online and in class parts seem only to be growing.
But maybe a better answer is to move the finish line forward. Perhaps the job of a Black Belt ought to be to deliver one thing and one thing only: the knowledge necessary to make the improvement. Maybe past that point there are others who will always be better at executing.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma - What's In It For Me?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_whats_in_it_for_me.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 37:  Six Sigma touts a lot of benefits for the company but what’s in it for me?
The answer to this question could be the turning point for this individual.  Can you give them the right answer to their WIFM (What’s In It For Me?).   Where do you begin?   Here’s what I say . . .
There are ’Many Me(s)’ in Six Sigma and many more benefits than Me(s).  Below are a couple of examples.  Picking the right benefit that best matches the "Me" that is doing the asking will increase your chance of convincing this potential naysayer that life is good in Six Sigma town.





 Who Am I?

 What’s In It for Me?

 Why It’s a Good Thing?

Customer



Increased product /service reliability 

Reduced cycle time 

Done right the first time

Improved customer satisfaction


Employee



Participation in the voice of the process 

Personal development and learning 

Improved work flow (less frustration)

Increased employee satisfaction


Company



Improved processes 

Bottom line contribution (cost &amp; revenue) 

Pathway to excellence

Improved performance


Shareholder



Improved customer satisfaction 

Increased employee satisfaction 

Improved performance

Increased shareholder value]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:36:51 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Ants Marching]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/ants_marching.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was up late practicing one of my favorite hobbies, web surfing, and after a chain of clicks on tonight’s topic of interest, optimization, I stumbled upon something I thought I’d share. 
I’ve been a practitioner/advocate of simulation for some time now and recently I’ve decided to educate myself beyond what the typical software packages provide. Not that these products aren’t sufficient, most of them are more than I’d ever need, I just want to know more about the science behind them. Anyway, in my exploration I came across a mathematical programming (optimization) technique for solving computational problems called ant colony optimization. I’ll save you the trouble and give you the wikipedia summary of the idea here:

In the real world, ants (initially) wander randomly, and upon finding food return to their colony while laying down pheromone trails. If other ants find such a path, they are likely not to keep traveling at random, but to instead follow the trail; returning and reinforcing it if they eventually find food.
