<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</title>
		<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/RSS2.asp?action=full</link>
		<description>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2004-2009 iSixSigma</copyright>
		<managingEditor>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</webMaster>
		<generator>iSixSigma Blog 1.0.5</generator>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:39:54 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    	<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Spoonful of Sugar]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_spoonful_of_sugar.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've been thinking a lot lately about resistance to change.  The Rogers Adoption / Innovation curve (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards) is referenced in some form by most people involved in change management.
Now, I'm not an innovator myself.  My special form of creativity doesn't manifest itself by coming up with new ideas that no one else has thought of, or completely new ways to do things.  I'd tag myself as being in the early adopter or maybe early majority categories most of the time.
So it can be a stretch for me to work with the late majority or laggards.  "Don't you know this will be good for you?" I ask incredulously.  "Can't you see all the benefits and advantages that you will have once you've made this change?"  I confess that I get very impatient sometimes.
Fortunately I have great team members that a) calm me down and prevent me from sending career-limiting emails, and b) remind me that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Or, as the movie musical "Mary Poppins" character sings, "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."
(Of course, as she's singing that, she's snapping her fingers and making the children's clothes go back into the drawers without any effort on anyone's part.)
But in the real world, it's good to ask ourselves what's in it for the stakeholders, and try to see what would make the change more palatable.  The trick is, it has to been seen as a value-added return even before the gains are realized.  For example, a promise that the work will be easier might not be believed, even if you know it will be true.
Have you found a good way to engage stakeholders who might need a little extra encouragement to buy into a change plan?  It would be most helpful if you would share your experiences!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:20:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: It's a &quot;Circle of Life&quot; Thing!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/its_a_circle_of_life_thing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I used to be really annoyed with people who took a wait-and-see approach to change.  They're not resistant, exactly, and they might be classified as "late adopters."  But I could understand active resistance better than passive indifference.
Now, however, I have a little different take on things.  Because I have realized that if you wait long enough, you may find that whatever was changed comes back around again!
Such as... 

Centralization vs decentralization of departments or functions
Use of consultants vs hiring internal resources
Outsourcing vs insourcing
This reminded me about the lines from the Disney movie, "The Lion King," where young Simba gets the explanation about how the antelopes eat the grass and the lions eat the antelopes, and then the lions die and their bodies turn to grass (OK, you knew it would be a PG version) which is then eaten by the antelopes.  So everything comes back to a big circle of replaying the same scenarios.
For process changes, it's easy to see how this becomes just another bright idea to wait out, to someone who's been around a long time.  Especially when you're in an organization that promises that every change is NOT just the flavor of the month, and then six months later it's disappeared.  So how can I criticize someone for saying, "Well, go ahead with this Lean thing, I'll just wait and see what comes of it before getting enthusiastic about it."  After all, they've probably been right about all the other wonderful new initiatives and changes that have come and gone before.
Maybe you are fortunate enough to work in a place which has solved this circular pattern, or maybe you are trying to break out of that.  Would you care to share your experiences, to help us put some perspective on the issue?
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:51:52 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Will the Real Process Owner Please Stand Up?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/will_the_real_process_owner_please_stand_up.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I was leading a department, I never thought of myself as a process owner.  It wasn't in my job description, and I never heard anyone used the term.  It's one of those useful concepts that I wish I had known, prior to my Six Sigma and Lean education.
Here's my working definition:  The process owner is that leader who is closest to the process itself, who has responsibility for achieving the expected outcome of the process, both before and after an improvement project.
So now, I try to introduce the term right away and use it frequently so that everyone knows what the role is, in respect to a project (and afterwards).  I also try to spend extra time with the process owner if they are new to the role.  Even then, though, it's hard sometimes to get across the continuing expectations.  A statement that I hear frequently is, "I'm glad that the project is over - now I can quit being the process owner!"
Have any of you faced this challenge, or is it more clearcut in some industries than in others?  Have you had to do extra education or mentoring of someone who was not sure they were a process owner - for either a project or a process?  Do you have a different definition of process owner, that's been helpful for you?
It would be great to hear your thoughts.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:38:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: My Favorite Tools]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/my_favorite_tools.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, maybe I have more than one favorite tool - but there are 2 that are fun to use with a group.
One is sticky-note brainstorming.  It avoids the perils of the regular "everybody call out their ideas" brainstorming, because (a) you get 100% participation; (b) you can get LOTS of ideas in just a few minutes; (c) you don’t need a scribe to try to capture everything as multiple people are speaking quickly; (d) you avoid people being worried about "what will my boss think" about an idea; (e) it’s anonymous so people are braver; (f) you can put duplicates on top of one another and categorize with ease, just by moving them around.  Also (g) you can use colorful sticky-notes and make a cheerful impression rather than a boring one!
Secondly, if I’m using the group’s ideas to capture possible solutions, I really like to use an Impact/Effort Matrix.  You may have heard of this under another name - it’s a 2x2 matrix with Impact along one axis (High, Low) and Effort along the other (Easy, Hard).  I ask the group members to place the sticky notes in the appropriate category - if there’s doubt they can place them on the dividing line.  Then I can facilitate the group to ask, "Does this idea belong here?  Do we all agree that it’s High Impact (or whatever) and Easy to do?"  If not, we have a good discussion and end up with consensus.  It’s amazing how this helps to prioritize the efforts - we will definitely pursue the "High Impact, Easy" ideas; think about a plan for the "High Impact, Hard" ideas; see if we can catch some low hanging fruit with the "Low Impact, Easy" ideas; and forget about the "Low Impact, Hard" ideas.
These ideas can then be turned into action plans or placed in a parking lot as appropriate.  Using the sticky-note brainstorming to get 100% participation, and the Impact/Effort Matrix to prioritize ideas, results in better decision-making and better buy-in to the resulting plans.
What are your favorite change management / process improvement tools?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:33:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Great Healthcare Debate]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_great_healthcare_debate.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While the iSixSigma.com site has been down, the rhetoric about "fixing healthcare" in the US has dramatically heated up.  "We need to take the waste out of healthcare!"  "We're paying too much for healthcare!"  "Everyone should get all the healthcare they need regardless of cost!"
Without getting into the political debate, let's just touch on these points from a quality perspective.
There's a balance between cost, speed and quality that's quite a challenge in healthcare.  For example, if I order $5000 worth of tests on day 1, and can tell you your diagnosis on day 2 and start treatment, what's that worth to you and your health (even if it turns out that 5 tests out of the 30 ordered didn't help with the diagnosis)?  How about taking the cost-effective route:  I'll order one test per day, evaluate the results, and then order the next test.  It may take me 21 days to figure it out, while you are waiting all the while, but hey! it did cost less!  So, in which example was there more waste???
Paying too much for healthcare... does that mean we are paying more than the value we receive, or just more than we desire to (or can afford to) pay?  Most of us a) don't know how much our healthcare actually costs; b) can't judge the quality of the medical care we receive; and c) won't haggle over the cost of an IV solution when the care of a loved one is at stake.  There's an emotional element of this debate that is not susceptible to logical reasoning.  We see this in all the stories of people who have gotten poor care or ran out of money or their insurance wouldn't cover a certain procedure.  If we try to "ration" care in the most logical way possible, we immediately run into the emotional (or moral, if you prefer) discussion about denying care to those who need it on a purely financial basis.  The factual and emotional issues are entangled as we debate this topic.  
Should everyone get the healthcare they need regardless of cost?  It's my personal opinion that provision of basic services, including healthcare, should be a function of an organized society.  But, it's not a "commodity" service like garbage collection, is it?  Since we do have to look to our tax-paying citizens and employers to pay for "healthcare for all" - the question of course is, how much should each of us contribute to this worthy cause?  And who decides how that money is to be used?
Having stirred the pot this morning, I will close by saying - it's a complex system!

There are no "specifications" for inputs (patients who need care come in all conditions and with variation in their genetic, mental, physical, experiential, cultural, economic, and social backgrounds); 
Processes are highly complex with many stakeholders and overlapping responsibilities
There is an expert-based culture of physician caregivers (now expanding slightly to other medical professionals);
Outcomes may not meet the patients' goals through no-one's fault (you can mostly blame our biologically-based life processes, I guess) but which may in some cases be due to poor care or non-compliance on the part of the patient (for example, not taking medications in the way they were prescribed).  
So I just caution you to think carefully about all the proposals that will be floated to "fix" the healthcare system, and don't jump to solutions too soon on this one.
Is healthcare in its current form in the US perfect?  NO!  But first I think we have to go back to quality basics and agree on who are the customers, and what is value-added to those customers.  I've seen many more "solutions" floated, than thoughtful consideration of just what it is we want to get to.  I encourage everyone to join this debate from the quality improvement perspective, and to lend your expertise to the discussion!
 
p.s.  It's good to be "back on the air" again!  Kudos to those at iSixSigma.com who have been working to resolve the issues that interrupted service over the past several weeks.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:36:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Getting the Word Out]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/getting_the_word_out.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I begin a new project, I include a Communication Plan as part of my team work.  That is, we take the stakeholder list and think about who we need to be in communication with, as we move through the project phases.  Some of you may do this based on an ARMI exercise (Approvers/ Resources/ Members/ Interested Parties) or Stakeholder Analysis exercise (List of key stakeholders and their estimated level of commitment to the project).  We include activities like face-to-face conversations, presentations in department meetings, newsletter articles, postings on the web site, etc.
But even though we try to heed the mantra, "communicate 8 times, 8 ways" it seems like we always have a gap in our communication.
For example:  Our team invites a key department leader to our project meeting; we discuss our project and get agreement as to next steps.  We plan an elevator speech and ask the leader to discuss it at his/her next department meeting and get agreement to do that.  We talk about possibly sending an email or posting information on the department's bulletin board for those who can't attend the meeting.  All good so far!
Then, a week later - after the department meeting, and having seen for ourselves that the information is posted on the bulletin board, a few team members stroll through the department to gauge the level of buy-in.  And - do they find that everyone is informed, interested, and enthusiastic about the project?  Or, do they find that people are negative toward the new process that's coming their way?
Why, no!  We find that most people remember vaguely hearing something about some new process, and others just give us blank stares.  When the bulletin board is mentioned, we get the response "Oh, I know it's there but it never changes so I don't look at it."
So, what are our learnings from this type of situation?  We only communicated once or twice, one or two ways - so obviously we would need to keep our communication plan active!  But are there other ways that you have been successful communicating outside of your project team, as you make progress?  Thanks in advance for sharing!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 08:24:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Ready for Change... Almost!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/ready_for_change_almost.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You've completed your planning phase - whether it's specifying value and mapping the value stream, Defining / Measuring / Analyzing, or Planning - and you're ready to move into Creating Flow, Improving, or Doing.  Hooray!  The pilot plan has been finalized, the Process Owner says it's fine, the team is ready to move forward.  And then...
Little cracks start appearing in the plan.  "We forgot about..."  "One of our team members says the plan won't work because..."  "We thought the computer system did THIS and instead it works like THAT so our plan needs to be changed!"
How many times have you gone through these pre-improvement jitters?  Is it a matter of staying calm in the face of chaos, staying the course, trusting the process?  Have you ever had an experience where you really did have to call a halt and regroup, because you found out that there was a major roadblock in your path?
As an optimist, I try to stay flexible and reassure the team that we can address issues as they appear, usually by obtaining additional information and clarifying the issue before deciding that we need to make a change.  But I have had to halt a project just as we were moving into Improve, because the hospital decided to implement a new computer system in the department just at that time, rather than waiting for the project to be completed.  And in fact, if we had completed our project without the new system, we probably would have had to re-do the process following the system implementation anyway.  Plus, the same people who were on our team were also the people who were wanted for the design of the new system, so there was a resource conflict as well.
What we did was to put the project on "hiatus" for three months.  Then, we re-measured and re-analyzed, to see if we still had the same critical factors, tweaked our Improve plan, and proceeded.  It didn't feel very good at the time, but it all worked out in the end.
Have you had this experience?  How did you handle a halt or delay in a project that was in full swing?  Please share your stories!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 07:28:14 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Leadership - Important Now More Than Ever]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/leadership_important_now_more_than_ever.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently James Considine and Stephen Crate have posted about management styles....and their posts have really made me think about management and leadership in general, especially during these challenging times...
From my perspective, you have to lead people to achieve results.  If you are a manager, indeed your job is to manage the business, but to lead and support people as well, rather than manage them.  Given the right amount of coaching and "rope" if you will, your employees may surprise you in what they are capable of achieving.
I reported to a manager at one point in my career that I would do anything for.  He really led me to higher performance and really coached me in my own management skills - and the things I learned I still use to this day.  He always made clear what my objectives were and basically followed-up on progress on an as-needed basis, rather than telling me which discrete tasks to perform.  It was my responsibility to come up with my own checkpoints and milestones in order to accomplish my goals, and with his input, I would execute the plan.  Granted, there were times that demanded a direct order, but those were in crisis situations which demanded that style.
There are a lot of advantages to leading people to performance - but the biggest advantage is the teaching that occurs during the process.  As a leader, a major responsibility that you have is to teach your employees how to plan and how to achieve goals.  By doing this, you effectively raise the competence level of them, and better prepare them for more responsibility.  This dramatically helps with succession planning for sure, and creates depth in your organization.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Small Things]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/small_things.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've attended a lot of leadership development courses over the years, and received many handouts, folders, and binders chock full of ways to make myself into a better manager... of people, time, money, etc.
One precept that has stuck with me is that we should pay attention to the small things that are annoyances today, so they don't become bigger problems tomorrow.  Even if it's unlikely that something will become a big problem, it's worth the effort to eliminate it so that it isn't draining our energy to deal with.
Ben Franklin figured this out long ago, with his saying "A stitch in time saves nine."  As a youngster, I confess that this didn't make much sense to me.  What is a stitch in time?  (Is that a problem in the space-time continuum?)  Saves nine what?  Now I get it - sewing up a small rip saves it from getting larger and needing more stitches to fix later - perhaps after all my money has fallen out of the pocket!  (Just goes to show why I wasn't any good in my Home Economics classes.)  
In my daily work, I try to be on the lookout for those small things - like, my stapler broke and I can't take the time to order a new one, so I have to keep using paper clips that fall off.  Like, my AAA battery died in my mouse but I don't have time to stop and get new batteries from central supply, so I'll use the keyboard alternatives.  Like, one of may chair casters fell off and I've propped it up with a book "for now."
Sometimes it's a matter of looking at things from a lean perspective - kanban or 5S is very helpful.  But it's also the concept of taking time to fix the small things, so that I don't spend a lot of time doing work-arounds which are innately less efficient and less satisfying.
Maybe you have already found this out for yourself - want to share any related examples or experiences?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:59:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Before &amp; After]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/before_amp_after.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My organization requires that we write our annual performance goals into a web-based system that can be sent to our bosses for their review.  As I was working on this last week, it struck me that in the past I would not have written those goals the way I do now.
For example, "improve service" would have been a typical goal for one of my previous positions.  Today I'd be examining:  What data will be used to measure the improvement?  What is the target?  What type(s) of service would be in scope?  What customer segment would be studied?  Who are the stakeholders for this service, and how many would have influence or control over aspects of the improvement?
In other words, I'd be a lot more specific - call it SMART if you want - and at the end of the year I could clearly tell whether or not I had met the goal.  In the past, I'd say "well I worked really hard all year on this and I think people are more satisfied with the service, based on the 2 - 3 customers I spoke with."
Now, it's still possible to "game" the system by picking easy targets that would be hard to miss, or choosing focus areas without established metrics.  But, I wonder how much more effective I would have been as a supervisor, manager, or director if I had known and used a process- and metrics-oriented approach to leadership.
So here's my question to my readers!  Have you used a Lean, Six Sigma, or other process-based approach your whole professional career, or did you learn it mid-career?  It would be interesting to know what your reflections on the difference it might have made, had you been exposed to the concepts and methodology earlier in life - I invite you to share.
[Note:  For those who may not have run into this acronym before, SMART refers to goals or metrics that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound.  There are a few variant versions but all reflect the same basic principles.]]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:40:04 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: More Than Advice]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/more_than_advice.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've done a lot of informal coaching in my career - you know, the kind where you're in conversation and someone says, "Gee, Sue, can you give me advice on..." and I get to cheerfully dispense my words of wisdom and then wish them good luck with their problem.  Sometimes people seek me out and ask to talk over things with me, to help clarify an issue or opportunity.  That's also fun and from feedback I've received, people usually appreciate having me as a sounding board.
But I've recently been asked to take on a more formal coaching role with project leaders.  I won't be on the project teams, but I will meet with the project leaders to provide guidance.  Some of my leaders are experienced and some are new to the whole thing; some are using Six Sigma and others Lean.  Mostly I try to tell them things I wish I had known when I started in process improvement, and to give them good advice that they can take or leave at their discretion.  If they run into problems I try to help develop an approach with them.
I'm at ease about technical coaching - tools, methods, reports, etc., but this "soft side" is more of a challenge for me.  
As a "Driver" by nature I worry a lot about subconsciously trying to make them fit into the pattern that works for me, rather than letting them find their own way.  Should I "give them enough rope to hang themselves" and then help them pick up the pieces?  (I've been mentored this way myself and found it to be quite uncomfortable at the receiving end.  On the other hand, I did learn a lot!)  Or should I try to guide them on every foreseeable response and give them Plan A, B, and C for every contingency?  (Over-thinking?)  If they have a different personality style than I do, am I trying to make them more like me because that's what I'm comfortable with?  If I think they are going off-track, do I "give it to them straight" or tactfully share some hints on how it might work better the next time, so I don't discourage them too much?
For those of you who are experienced mentors, can you share any general advice on how to balance the "push" of helping the project leaders to get their project deliverables accomplished, and the "pull" of guiding, aiding, and supporting?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:57:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Financial Crisis - When Profits Win Over Building Customer Value]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_financial_crisis_when_profits_win_over_building_customer_value.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One of the aspects of Six Sigma that makes the process so great is the focus on the customer, and the gathering of the VOC (voice of the customer).  Using the VOC information a company can begin designing ways to improve customer value, by designing products and processes that are centered around customer requirements.  Doing this effectively maximizes profits while adding value to customers.  In addition to these things, the company begins to build a solid foundation based on business principles that are aligned with customer expectations.  The real advantage gained is the link between the customer and the company.
However, what happens when a company (or an entire industry for that matter) places the highest priority on maximizing profits, even at the expense of customer value?  My opinion is that the current financial crisis is a direct result of mortgage companies doing this very practice.
Let's look at the "pre-bubble explosion" state of affairs in mortgages in general.  How easy was it to obtain an interest-only loan from lenders in the United States?  Virtually anyone could.  How does an interest-only loan add value to the customer?  Short-term, the customer has a lower monthly payment... but is that real value added when the customer's monthly payments balloon in a few years, and the mathematics between annual income and amount borrowed doesn't even make sense?  Since I don't work in the financial sector, I'm not sure, but I have a feeling that there was some hedging going on based on projected property values....
Innovation without regard to real customer value is a disaster waiting to happen, especially when customers perceive that they are getting value.
I will say that the whole interest-only mortgage design is very innovative and for sure is designed to maximize profits.....but ultimately, who is paying the price for all of that "short term" innovation?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:10:14 -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: The C Word]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_c_word.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That would be... Consultants.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak about lean for clinical laboratories at the recent Leadership Exchange conference, hosted by the American Society for Clinical Pathology.  In discussions during the conference, I was asked many questions about the use of consultants to get started with lean.  In many cases, stories started with "Our lab has been leaned out," with the consequences of positions being eliminated, front-line workers being unhappy with the standard work that someone else had decided for them, and being asked to clock each and every step of their process for days on end.
So my question is, what is passing for lean these days?  No wonder I hear people saying, "Lean doesn't work!"
Now, I know that there are many fine, upstanding lean practitioners out there, who use strategic planning and the A3 approach to lean deployment.  Maybe I don't hear about them because they're doing a fine, value-added job.  But I do hear many stories about lean gone wrong.
Have you had an experience where someone was claiming to be a lean expert, but it didn't resemble lean philosophy as you know it?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:49:30 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Is Healthcare the Next Big Thing?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/is_healthcare_the_next_big_thing.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've had a lot pf people asking me about healthcare lately.  As in, "Now that big corporations and the automotive companies are reeling, with the stimulus coming and promises of healthcare reform, isn't it a great time to move out of the manufacturing sector and into process improvement in healthcare?" 
Well, it's true that there are vast opportunities for improvement in healthcare.  No one has the corner on perfection in care processes (although we're all working madly on it, especially now that there's public posting of healthcare quality - check out "Hospital Compare") or in the support processes like patient accounting and billing.  If I had my way, there'd be an improvement professional as a permanent part of every department's budget.
But, just think a moment.  Who pays for healthcare in the US?  First of all, the federal government, which is desperately trying to shrink the amount it pays for healthcare even as it's talking about access for all.  Many hospitals have 40 - 60% of their revenues coming from Medicare and/or Medicaid.  Frequently the government reduces reimbursements with very little warning.  It's an interesting thing, these days, to try to budget for healthcare when your major source of revenue pays 10% - 15% less every six months or so.
Then, there is the second largest healthcare revenue source, and that would be employers.  Specifically, those same big corporations and automotive companies that are in a bit of trouble these days, along with their suppliers and vendors.  As these companies have massive layoffs, and shrink benefits for the remaining workers, what's the outcome?  People will tend to utilize preventative services less frequently (because of those big copays and deductibles).  And out-of-work employees have usually have a little coverage with COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) benefits, but then may have trouble paying the premiums - thousands of dollars a month.  Therefore, hospitals are bracing for huge increases in emergency care visits which will either be reimbursed at lower rates (Medicare / Medicaid) or not reimbursed at all.  So there will be less revenue there as well.
Now, back to those opportunities.  If you were a hospital executive, knowing that less-costly processes would have a positive impact on your contribution margin, wouldn't you invest heavily in the very people who can do this work for you?  Why wouldn't you want to have a trained group of healthcare Black Belts or Lean Practitioners at your hospital or healthcare company?
Well, because of the decrease in insurance revenue and the hit everyone's pension plan took with the stock market plunge, there just aren't enough dollars to fund everything that needs to be supported.  Hospital executives are having to make hard choices - and believe me, they'll lay almost anyone off before they lose nurses or other direct care staff.
So, while ideally every healthcare company and organization would be heavily into process improvement, the truth is that if you're trying to go from a manufacturing or transactional position into healthcare, it's almost like "out of the frying pan, into the fire."  Admittedly, I'm from Southeastern Michigan where we are really feeling the impact of the uncertainty in the automotive industry.  However, the economic downturn has affected just about everyone in healthcare, whether they were prudent with their pension fund investments or not.
As an optimist by nature, I'm sure we'll pull out of this slump and eventually be able to look on the bright side of life once again.  In the meantime, if you're looking for a healthcare position, do your research and speak with those already involved, so you go in forewarned and forearmed!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:19:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Intelligence Status Report]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_intelligence_status_report.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After a long and extended absence, I am back to share some practical tips to help your Six Sigma program in times of economic turmoil. For starters, during the measure and analyze phases of a project, any of my readers know I talk about, this point of all projects and the introduction of BI, or business intelligence. 
Business intelligence represents the data within organizations that helps operationally drive, tactically drive and strategically drive better, more data driven decision making. Six Sigma, in parallel, is a process and quality methodology for reducing variation, defects, or increasing quality. 
Use this template as a starting to do list and status report out for all BI related project tasks. Click here for form
Sample Project Task Status Report]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Laura Gibbons]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:06:26 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Sensei Sue???]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/sensei_sue.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was talking with a group of people about leading lean, and someone asked me, "Are you a Sensei?"
So of course I said "No!"  I don’t call myself a Sensei, because I consider myself to be at the grasshopper-level of lean expertise.
However, the question did make me think.  I call myself a Black Belt without blinking an eye - on the checklist of how to be a Black Belt, I have filled in all the boxes:  [ ] Go through formal classroom training with hands-on practice and exercises. [ ] Be mentored in leading a project team through a Six Sigma DMAIC project, with all the bells &amp; whistles (graphical, statistical, and lean analysis). [ ] Get seal of approval in the form of a signed certificate from the MBB teaching the class. [ ] Fulfill additional years of leading Six Sigma teams with demonstrated tangible &amp; intangible benefits. And, because I’m an overachiever, [ ] Obtain certification from a national professional organization so my credentials would be a little more portable/marketable (being honest about it!).
So why don’t I call myself a Sensei?  What’s the checklist for that?  One of my teachers told me it would take leading hundreds of lean projects.  There’s a lot of debate about whether Lean practitioners should get into the certification race.  I’m starting to see jobs posted that require "certification in lean."
Are you a Sensei?  Do you know anyone who is?  And what does that mean?  Inquiring minds want to know!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:50:27 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Defects in Healthcare]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/defects_in_healthcare.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last Friday I taught a Lean Leadership class for my healthcare organization.  The participants included all levels of support staff, physicians, nurses, and department leaders.  They grasped the concepts easily, and we had a lot of fun with the simulation exercise.  In the first round, of course, no products made it to the customer.  In the second round, after applying 5S and reducing batch size for better flow, a few products made it to the customer but with some defects.  
In the third round, after applying takt time and level loading, more product units made it to the customer but with even more defects.  This prompted an interesting discussion, as we were reviewing the cost of defects (in our simulation, a delivered product brings revenue of $100 per unit, defects cost $20 and Work In Progress $5).  One of the physicians brought up a great point - what is the "cost of defects" in healthcare?  
In the most purely commercial aspect, the cost of poor quality is the cost of rework and so-called service recovery.  In a risk-managed world, you might add in the cost of potential law-suits and malpractice insurance.  You can even go so far as to put a value on the person's life, for example the number of years remaining of potential employability, and possible value and/or contributions to family, employers, and community.
But the defect that the physician was talking about was the defect of an adverse outcome for a patient.  And it was obvious that every single person in the room had a dedication to the safety of every one of the patients under their care.  So we talked about the cost of a defect related to patient safety, and that the lives under their care were literally "priceless" regardless of what the risk-adjusters might say.  And we can have a huge impact on that safety by using Lean concepts and tools, and integrating the check-do-check into our processes, while streamlining the work and empowering healthcare professionals to call "Stop!" when they see something that may not be right.
The rest of the exercise went very well - the fourth round was organized around a pull system adjusted to takt time, incorporating check-do-check.  The customer had just the right number of units, WIP was minimal, they made money, and they had no defects.
But the memory that I will take from this class is the absolute dedication that this group had to the welfare of their patients.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:25:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: New Year's Resolution]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/new_years_resolution.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This year, I'm making a resolution to do a good deed daily.  This is inspired in part by Gianna Clark's latest blog, How W.O.W.?, but also by my own sense of imbalance in the customer feedback that most organizations receive.
I've communicated about problems and complaints many times - but - I realized that I don't give positive feedback very often.  (And don't we Process Improvers always say, that we receive more negative feedback than positive?  It's embarrassing to realize that I'm not walking the talk!)  So this year I'm trying to look for daily opportunities to give kudos and complements - not only for the WOW moments but when people show special care and attentiveness.
Like Gianna, my husband and I had the occasion to process a transaction at our local bank the other day.  We stopped in to cash out a CD (boy, just when you think your child's college expenses are all set, there's always another special need!!).  Anyway, the young man who helped us a) checked our interest amount for our savings account and increased it, based on our average balance over the past few months; b) suggested a better way to transfer funds to avoid fees and delays; c) talked with us about special offers and opportunities related to our credit and debit cards, and didn't pressure us when we declined.  
We didn't have a bell to ring, like GIanna did, but we asked to speak to his manager, and then asked her to put a note in his file for excellent customer service.  They were both surprised and pleased (expecting the negative) and we felt that we had done a good deed.
This is one resolution that will be fun to keep up!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:59:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What You Measure is What You Get?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_you_measure_is_what_you_get.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Perhaps what you measure is what you get. More likely, what you measure is all you'll get. What you don't (or can't) measure is lost" - H. Thomas Johnson
Those of you who are Deming fans may liken this quote to Deming's admonition that "the most important figures that one needs for management are unknown or unknowable, but successful management must nevertheless take account of them." (from Out of the Crisis, p121). 
I came across this quote recently, which was quite apt as I was completing the end of year wrap-up required  of all employees at my firm. Like many firms that run on making the metrics, making them look good, having airtight explanations for variances, plans to move the needle, and so on, the powerpoint decks generally tell a tremendous story. (If only Wall St. could see them - perhaps stock prices would be better?). 
Conversely, if you don't have numbers to back up your story, come back and talk to me when you do. 
So back to my year end wrap-up, which, by the way, is a key component of performance evaluation, merit increases, and future career path within the firm. I was advised to include as many "quantifiable accomplishments" as possible. Having joined the firm only mid-year, and assigned to work on a quality issue that has plagued the industry for 10 or 20 years, it is probably too soon to declare victory and post a dramatic improvement to the things our customers care about most. 
In fact, the bulk of my time has been spent trying to develop facts and data about the process performance, and impress upon the producing organizations the voice of the internal and external customers, so that we can focus our measurements and improvement efforts on the right things. Very basic questions - who are the customers? What do they need? How well are we meeting those needs?, basic questions that we are still trying to answer. All the while, the quality of this particular product hasn't changed at all since I launched the effort several months ago. 
Our team has also been highly aware of the dark side of metrics - to Dr. Johnson's point, what you measure may be all you get. And to quote another favorite thinker of mine, The Lean Thinker, "you get what you measure, but don't be surprised of people are ingenious in destructive ways in how they get there" (full post here.) So we strive for 100% on-time performance, only to see our first time yields plummet. Or we strive to measure revisions, only to have needed corrections go un-made in order to show a reduction. As one of my colleagues put it, "tell me what number you want to move, and we'll make sure that we do". 
Now, this is not a plea to remove metrics. Only to measure the right things, and measure them correctly, so that we account for the "dark side". So, present on-time performance figures, if that's what's important, but make sure the FTY % is always presented next to it. It's also a plea to keep taking account of the unknown or unmeasurable things that matter - just because we can't measure it, doesn't mean we get to ignore it.
Last week, a senior leader and sponsor of this effort jokingly asked whether I had the problem figured out. Not quite. But I was able to tell him that department X has several talented black belts on it, is now focused on measuring defects the right way, and is starting to really understand the needs of their internal and external customers. To which he replied, "That's a major accomplishment!".
I asked if I could quote him in my wrap-up - it's probably the best piece of data I have going for me thus far.
Whatever holiday you and yours celebrate, I hope it is a good one. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[James Considine]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:02:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Least-Effort Way]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_least_effort_way.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We've all seen the "resistance curve" where a few people are innovators, some are early adopters, early and late majorities, and a few are laggards, or skeptics, or what-have-you (from the work of Everett Rogers and other researchers). 
One way to get almost everyone to be an early adopter is to offer something of value - money, time off, presents.  Yes, bribes (as well as food) are well-known tools for speeding change acceptance.  Did you ever hear of anyone resisting a bonus check?  (I do know of one instance where a person received an unexpected bonus check for $100, then complained because the check wasn't for an amount that would have yielded $100 after taxes.)
However, there's another inducement to change that I've observed.  When people are introduced to the possibility of a new or different process, they sometimes are eager to embrace change as long as the new process meets one criterion:  It's "less work" for them.
Now, this is a little different discussion than most of us have had about Radio Station WII-FM:  What's In It For Me?  These particular folks don't want to be jollied into accepting more work; they just want to do less work (by their own definition).
Because, let's face it - often, it's "more work" to do something right the first time, in the way it's supposed to be done, than to do it poorly the first time and let someone else do the rework later.  Regardless of the potential benefit and value to the customer, some people who are "in the moment" just care about the work that they do personally.  It's so easy to get caught up in what's value-added for ourselves and to lose track of what's value added for the customer.
I don't want to get diverted into related discussions about the work ethic of our Generation-X and Gen-Y employees (not to mention the Millennials); or Theory X (people try to do the least work) vs Theory Y (people try to do a good job).  I'd just like to know whether anyone else has experienced this, and what they have done to address it.  After all, we won't get far with process improvement if the gold standard is that everyone will do less work than they were doing before!
Or will we?!?!?!?!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:22:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Customer W.O.W. - The Basics]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/customer_wow_the_basics.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What’s Needed . . . On Time . . . With Value . . .   That’s what you’ll find on the W.O.W. Side.  More simply put, it is about customer delight.   I like the words "customer delight".  Webster’s defines delight as ’extreme satisfaction’ . . .  It is what gets your customers to say WOW!   Professor Noriaki Kano described the look and feel of WOW with the Kano Model.  It’s going past satisfying customer basic needs and performance needs and finding those things that excite or delight the customer thus creating customer WOW.    Sounds simple but you will find that many companies, although striving for WOW, have not figured out how to consistently meet basic needs and therefore wallow in the halls of "can’t get there from here".   Basic needs are those things that if done correctly do not add to customer satisfaction but if done incorrectly will result in dissatisfaction.  For example, if you are checking out of a hotel and your bill is correct it’s a non-event.  No one is running around saying WOW, they got my bill right.  But having an error on the bill results in customer dissatisfaction.  
The first step in mapping your path to the W.O.W. Side is getting the basics right.  Sounds simple but it is not.  How many times in the past month have you experienced poor service or poor quality?  Maybe it was getting home and finding out that the drive-through restaurant left a sandwich out of your order or maybe you had to stand in line for 15 minutes to get through a checkout line.  The fact that basic needs are constantly changing makes this step even more complicated.  What was a delighter last week will, over time, work its way to a basic need.  For example, years ago having internet service in a hotel was a delighter.  Today, if a hotel doesn’t provide free wireless service they are teetering on the edge of creating customer dissatisfaction.  Customer basic needs and expectations are changing so fast that in the blink of an eye you can find yourself quickly moving from Customer WOW to  Customer OW proving once more that meeting basic needs is an ongoing journey -  not a one time accomplishment.
So where do you start?  Get the basics right.  Define your core business and products, review metrics that describe your performance level, identify any defects that keep you from getting the basics right and apply continuous improvement methods such as lean, six sigma, kaizen, etc. to eliminate dissatisfiers.  You will also need to constantly draw on customer input to gage your success and keep your ’basics’ up-to-date.  
Getting the basics right is a prerequisite to being able to "Take a Walk on the W.O.W. Side".  Bypass this step and you may find that the old saying "You can’t get there from here" may be old but still stands true.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:56:49 -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: 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: The L Word]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_l_word.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That would be "Leadership."  I've been given a definition of leadership that I'd like to discuss with you and ask your opinion about.
The question that was posed to me was, "What is a leader?"
I gave what I thought was a pretty good response - about having a vision, bringing people along in the direction needed to support the vision, and instilling accountability as a management philosophy.
But, I was told that I was wrong.  A leader, I was told, is one who has followers.
So, if followers are appointed or assigned, a person is a leader?  I asked.
Just so, I was told.  And if you don't have followers, then you aren't a leader.
Now, this caused me some ego anxiety, particularly as I am currently self-employed and don't have any assigned followers at the moment.  (Although I've had plenty in the past.)  So, I used to be a leader but now I'm not, but I might be again in the future?
I did a little research on this concept and it turns out that there is a saying, There is one irrefutable definition of a leader, and that is someone people follow.  However, I've seen that attributed to Drucker (seems like he should know what he's talking about), but also to Michael Maccoby (management consultant and author, unfamiliar to me).
It occurred to me that maybe "leadership" is a term like "quality."  You can have good quality, or poor quality.  When we say that we have a quality process, however, we're implying that we have a high-quality process.  (I hope.)  So, for the term "leadership," maybe we're implying "positive leadership."  And, going back to the statement that a leader is someone who has followers, I see that it's a neutral type of definition.  Cult leaders, presidents of countries, Ghandi, front-line supervisors, Hitler - all of them leaders by that definition.
So, maybe I need to be a little more specific when talking about (and answering questions about) leadership.  If anyone has operational definitions or comments that they'd like to share, I'd love to continue my education on this topic!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:20:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Team Dynamics for College Seniors]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/team_dynamics_for_college_seniors.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have the privilege this semester of teaching a "Professional Practice" class for college seniors in Clinical Laboratory Science.  These are the folks who will be doing (among other things) any blood tests that you may have drawn in a doctor's office, hospital, or health fair.
Since I had input into the curriculum, I decided to teach a module on personality preferences, so I could link that to effective team management.  I used the DISC (r) model that is widely available.  You may be familiar with it - there are four categories of behavior preferences.  It's a useful shorthand for understanding one's preferred way of behaving.  I use the model to teach self-awareness, as a bridge to awareness of others (or, as we may say in Lean, respect for people!).
I shared the basic information about the four quadrants, and then asked the class of 25 to divide themselves up into the groups as they saw themselves:  Dominance ("Let's just do it and get it over with!" and "No touchy-feely stuff for me!"), Influence ("Let's hear everyone's great stories!" and "Let's have fun with this!"), Steadiness ("Let's understand why we're doing this, first of all!" and "Let's make sure everyone feels comfortable with this."), and Conscientious ("We need to know that we're making the right decision!" and "If only everyone would just do things the RIGHT way!").
Then, I asked each group to come with ideas for employee recognition, in about 10 minutes.
Lo and behold, I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration!
The Dominance group, about 25% of the class, was done first and had one sticky-note with 5 ideas on it, all related to individual rewards, such as a bonus or preferred parking space.
The Steadiness group, about a third of the class, was done next and had 5 sticky-notes with ideas related to personal rewards and also social rewards - mostly activities with groups that could be shared.
The Conscientious group, about 40% of the class, was not finished by the 10 minute mark; they asked for more time.  They had stopped at their first idea, a certificate of recognition, and their sticky-note had a full paragraph about the wording and appearance of the certificate.
(There was only one "Influencer" so I had her join one of the other groups.)
The students had a lot of fun with this exercise.  They all started comparing their friends and acquaintances, and I reminded them that a) this was a situational-sensitive preference, and everyone displays all of the traits at various times, and b) not to stereotype anyone else!
I thought it was a great opportunity to get students, near the beginning of their profession, to understand a little about personal dynamics when working in groups.  I hope it pays big dividends when they get out into the "real world."
How many of you use a personality-type profile or assessment when your teams are in their forming-norming stages?  Please share your best practices!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:16:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 5S Your Email Out-Box]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/5s_your_email_out_box.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After reading my last post, 5S Your Email In-Box, a couple of colleagues asked whether they could apply 5S to sending emails as well.  Here are the guidelines that I use - I'm sure others have their methods, too, so feel free to share your own best practices!
SORT
1.  Ask yourself, does the recipient really need this email?  What is it that you want them to do with it when they get it?  What makes this email, out of the 250 they will receive today, worthy of their stressed and limited time?  If it's not needed, don't send it.  (But, see the note about thank-you emails below.)
2.  Be careful of cc's (copy-to) and bcc's (blind copies).  Don't add people to the distribution list as a way to let the primary recipient know that you don't trust them to take action, or you're setting up a blame-sharing scenario (trust me, they'll figure this out without you telling them).  And I've been burned by bcc'ing something to which the bcc'd individual responded by hitting reply-all.  Very embarrassing.
3.  Know when to pick up the phone.  For any email with more than 3 back-and-forth volleys, I call the person to finish the conversation.  And some communication just shouldn't be done by email.  You already know that readers can attribute "tone of voice" to email communications, so if you've got something sensitive or confidential to share, do it in person or by phone.
STRAIGHTEN
1.  Help recipients know what you want them to do with the email.  Put it in the title:  Project XXX (please read and provide feedback by Friday).  Status of Team YYY (please respond with any questions).  Action Plan for Department ZZZ (Urgent - Action Needed by End of Business Day).  Meeting Notes from xx/yy/zz (Review and File).
2.  Remember that a lot of folks scan through emails using the Preview function.  Put the most important things in the top 2 or 3 lines of the email, including an executive summary, action requested and deadlines (if not in the title).
3.  If you're sending to more than one person, be very clear if there are specific action items requested of some individuals, versus the expectation that they will read-and-review.
SCRUB
1.  If the email is longer than a couple of paragraphs, consider sending an attachment instead.  Within the email, use bullet points to draw attention to important issues.  Use bolding (sparingly) to draw the eye to essential points or deadlines.
2.  If you are sending an attachment, consider sending the .pdf version to save space.
3.  Review your email before sending it.  Take out any unnecessary verbage - be concise and at the end, close by saying something like "please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about the above."  Trust that your readers will let you know if they need more info.
STANDARDIZE
1.  Many time-management experts think that you should set a certain time aside each day to read and reply to emails.  In the spirit of continuous flow, that doesn't work for me, but only you can decide how to handle your inbox.  Pick a method that works for you, and practice it.
2.  You can sort your sent mail into folders, so you can easily find it again - it's an option you can consider.  Also, did you know that you can drag your sent email into your in-box folders?  That way you can keep all your to-and-from correspondence together, if that works for you.
SUSTAIN
1.  Make up a little email audit form to review when sending email, comprised of the check-points you want to review before you hit send.  Mine looks like this:

Check, do all recipients need this email?  Check cc's.  Phone instead?
Action requested vs review - clear to all recipients?
Concise enough?  Need attachment?
OK to go?
I've been asked about those little "thank you" or acknowledgement emails; some people love them, some think they're a waste of email space.  I love to get them, I appreciate them, I feel warm and fuzzy about them, and then I delete them.
A note about tracking:  To me, it always feels a bit like "Big Brother is watching you" when I get the notice that the sender wants to know when I've read the email.  I use tracking very sparingly; I'd rather set a reasonable timeframe for response and then give the recipient a nudge if they don't get back to me.  But, it's a personal preference; I know some people who track all their emails (just as I know some who flag every email "high importance").
Lastly:  Your email signature / contact info is an essential part of business communication.  Don't just sign "love, Sue" - if someone needs to call you back or fax you a response, it's very frustrating to have to go searching for the information.  The basics include:  Name, title, company, mailing address, phone, fax, email, website if there is one.  Use with caution:  motivational quotes, images that add size to the email, blinking or moving graphics, background stationary, fonts other than web-safe (arial, verdana, courier, times new roman).
Now that I've shared my preferences, I'd love to know what other methods you are using to send emails in a lean manner!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:51:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 5S Your Email In-box]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/5s_your_email_in_box.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I love to open my business email in-box in the morning, don't you?  Especially if you've been practicing good work-life balance and haven't peeked at it since the end of business the day before.  When I go on vacation, it's a special treat.
Here's a 5S strategy that I have used to keep up with the "input."  [Note:  I'm using MS Office terminology since that's what I'm most familiar with - please substitute your own email application terms as you read.]
SORT
1.  If you've been gone a few days, or have LOTS of email to go through, sort the senders by name.  Tackle your boss's emails first, then other VIPs, then go down the list in order of importance to your current task load or priority projects.
2.  Be ruthless.  If you don't need to know it, "red-tag" the item by dragging it over to the "Deleted Items" box.  [Added action:  If you hate getting those cute kitten-pictures and the latest urban rumors from your friends, take 10 seconds to reply to the sender to say tactfully: please don't send them any more.  It's a worthwhile investment, and a true friend will appreciate your need to keep your business in-box for business only.]  
STRAIGHTEN
1.  If you do need to know it, but it's an on-going progress report or something that doesn't need a response, file it immediately under a helpful heading that you will find again.
2.  If you need to take action on an item, you can:  a) Place it in an "action needed by date" folder.  b) Leave it in your inbox as a reminder.  c) See if you can drag it into your Task List - it may convert to a task to which you can add details.  d) See if you can drag it into your calendar - to add it as a calendar item on the day of your choice.  e) Print it and put it in a "to-do" pile.  --The goal is to keep a clear picture of actions that you need to take, in a way that puts you on or ahead of deadline - not frantically searching for the original email when your boss or colleague asks you how you're coming on project X.
SCRUB
1.  Do you archive your emails?  I don't let the computer do it automatically - there are some long-term projects that I need to keep the running history on, all in once place.  When a project is finished, I move the whole folder to archive.
2.  If you email inbox has a restriction on size, you have options:  a) you can save everything to your hard drive or shared drive (open the email, click on FILE then SAVE AS), and then save any attachments to the same place.  There are also applications you can buy or download for free that handle this action.  b) or, at least in MS Office, you can create a .pst file that stores on your hard drive or shared drive, looks just like a folder in your mailbox, and you can store emails there just as you do in your regular mailbox.  Click on FILE, NEW, OUTLOOK DATA FILE.  (Get someone to help you if you have never used this, but after you've done it once it's easy.)  It doesn't usually "count against" your regular mailbox size limitations.  I use this for SENT MAIL since that's what usually kills my in-box size!  For example, SENT-2006, SENT-2007.
STANDARDIZE
1.  There's no one way to organize your folders.  I've seen success with folders by name of sender; week of the month; project name; etc.  A general rule of thumb is to have no more than 3 levels of folders for any one heading - unless you have a perfect memory.  But pick a system and stick with it.
2.  Corollary:  Most of us still use and receive paper in our jobs.  It's a lot easier to find things if your paper filing system matches your email folder structure, so when you try to find your hardcopy master project list for company A in region D related to Widget X, it's under the same paper file folder headings as you would find it if it had been sent electronically.  [Or, get with the new century and scan all documents into your computer, if you have access to a scanner!]
SUSTAIN
1.  Pick a slower-than-usual week, like a holiday week.  Set aside a couple of hours to go through your emails and see what you can archive - what you can discard - what you can file more appropriately.  The investment of time is well worth it.
There are usually many other options in each email system, such as assigning categories to emails or flagging them with various colored flags, that you can delve into as well.
However, the steps above have been helpful for me.  Do any of you have equally effective methods of taming the in-box jungle?  Please share!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:56:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: If Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Prioritized Projects...]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/if_peter_piper_picked_a_peck_of_prioritized_projects.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Which prioritized projects would Peter Piper pick?
I've been asked to speak about project selection at an upcoming symposium.  In doing research for this, I've reviewed articles from iSixSigma and other sources, from both the Six Sigma "ranked project hopper" perspective and the Lean A3 - strategic deployment perspective.  And I've done some project-picking in my time, too, using both those methods. With all the emphasis on data-driven decisions, there's one element that is usually mentioned in passing that may be the most important of all.  And that is... (drum roll please) Which problems are the executive leaders most emotionally driven to resolve?
Even if significant costs can be saved - even if reliability can be improved - even if staffing efficiencies can be realized - in my experience, if the project or deployment champion isn't engaged, you may end up with a beautiful project that won't be sustained.
A trite saying is that "people treasure what their bosses measure."  If one or more leaders is emotionally engaged in a project, they will pester the facilitator and team members.  They will ask for data at inconvenient times.  They will ask whether there are any barriers to be resolved.  They will cheerfully provide resources.  Staff members will know this is important to them, and will respond accordingly.  These leaders will behave in a way that lets everyone know this is important work - they have an obvious commitment to the project and its success.
When leaders are somewhat interested, they may ask questions and be willing to meet, but forward movement is definitely in the realm of the facilitator.  These leaders may be helpful when asked, but they will wait to be asked.  They are pleased to be involved as long as it doesn't take too much effort on their part.
When leaders are not engaged, it's hard to get meeting time with them, and meetings may be frequently postponed or cancelled.  They don't want to be bothered with details about the project.  They only want to know when it's over so they can go back to spending time on their other "more important" activities.
If you've ever led a project, you've seen behavior that falls into one of these categories.  The pain-in-the-butt activist leaders can be the most forward thinking.  The middle-of-the-road hobbyists can be helpful, if always a step behind.  The don't-bother-me-now-can't-you-see-I'm-working types will be happy to take credit once the project is done, but then ignore it to concentrate on other crisis situations.
So I'm suggesting that, while project prioritization matrices and strategic deployment models are great when all of the leaders are equally and emotionally engaged, there may be a simpler method to use when getting started or when engagement is not high across the board.
Have any of you ever selected your project by which executive was most enthusiastic?  It would be great to hear your experiences!
 
p.s.  For those of you detail-oriented folks whose memories are tickled by Peter Piper, it's from the collection of "Mother Goose" rhymes.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:02:57 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: My Husband the Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/my_husband_the_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I first went to Six Sigma training, I was very enthusiastic about it and shared everything I learned over the dinner table with my family.  I talked about my projects and the tools, my successes and failures.  I always thought they listened politely and then forgot about it.  You know, Mom talking about work AGAIN, yada-yada-blah-blah-blah.
Then one day recently my husband came home and asked me to help him transfer some process maps into an electronic version.  With a team from his workplace, he had facilitated a current state and future state map, and then asked the team to come up with goals for the project.  They included:
- Identify opportunities for flow 
- Eliminate duplicate steps
- Standardize process
- Meet stakeholder requirements
- Ensure that accreditation requirements are met
- Develop metrics for monitoring the process long-term
Now, he had talked about doing an improvement project at work for this particular process, but I hadn't quizzed him on the details.  So I was surprised and pleased that his project incorporated so many elements of the Lean and Six Sigma methods.
"Wow, honey, that's great!" I said.  "You really learned a lot from hearing me talk about my job at the dinner table!"
"Well, not really," he replied, "it's just common sense!"
Now, while his answer was not particularly tactful, I did like it for one reason.  It made me reflect that it would be great to live in a world where utilizing process improvement tools and concepts is "just common sense!" - instead of the resistance-laden, data-poor, time-crunched activity that it sometimes is.
I'll think I'll spend a few moments in that imaginary world, before returning to the next task on my to-do list!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:04:08 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: Sensei Certification?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/sensei_certification.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A lot of my conversations recently have centered around certification for lean.  Coming from colleagues who started in Six Sigma as a Green Belt or Black Belt, it seems "natural" that when you add lean facilitation to your skills, you could get certified in lean, too.
But, as I understand it, the traditional path for lean practitioners has been based more on experience and expertise than certification.  The concept of taking a test and getting certified as a lean leader seems not to fit the philosophy as I have learned it (so far!)
Is there a move to create a lean certification, either for facilitators or senseis, similar to the Green Belt / Black Belt / Master Black Belt model?  If so, does it require a project as part of the certification?  And, what is the title that you end up with?
I know there are "lean facilitator" certificates offered by a variety of universities and vendors.  I've even seen an ad for "Lean Six Sigma Sensei" certification.  How about "Lean Greenbelt, Lean Blackbelt, and Lean Masterblackbelt?"  "Lean Expert?"
I'm also starting to see classified ads for positions that read "Master Black Belt / Lean Sensei certification required."
So is there a new push for "Sensei certification?"  Or is that just wishful thinking on the part of people who like to collect letters after their names?Inquiring minds want to know!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:53:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Educational]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/educational.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I had the privilege recently of helping to teach lean to a group of university leaders.  I had great fun assisting with the first day of class, when we introduced basic lean concepts.  However, when my instructing partner and I looked at our plus-deltas from the day (comments about what the participants valued, and what we should change), there were some sticky-notes saying "too much material" and "went too fast" and "too much to remember."  Even though we had paced the day rather slowly, as I thought, it caused us to wonder whether we needed to restructure the day - or had we just not taught effectively?
On the second day, we got into Value Stream Mapping.  As we went through the material, topics from Day 1 kept popping up, as you would expect.  By repeating the concepts and giving specific, education-based examples, we were able to build a lot of momentum around the purpose and usefulness of Value Stream Mapping.  The plus-deltas on Day 2 showed that most people enjoyed putting the concepts to work around real-life examples.
By Day 3, when we used examples of frustrating processes to create Future State maps, the group was in full swing.  They were coming up with so many ideas to remove waste and reduce delays and hand-offs, that we were hard-pressed to keep them from going right out and implementing their suggestions.  ("Wait, you don't have enough feedback from the front-line workers yet!!!  Remember, it's JUST an exercise!!!")  The evaluation included many "plusses" and only a few "deltas."
What made the difference?  We introduced just as many new concepts the first day as we did the second and the third.  But by incorporating the tools that we'd already introduced, as we brought up new ones, we gave the group practice in "trying on" the lean approach in different ways, and finally we let them loose on real-life examples.
This experience made it clear to me that I shouldn't be judgmental when people need to hear things more than once, in order to incorporate and integrate the concepts.  I've seen many learners become anxious when they're overwhelmed with new terminology; but on the other hand, there are always some "drivers" in the audience who aren't satisfied unless you're covering each slide in about 30 seconds.  It's interesting that each group seems to have its own pace of learning.  In the educators' group, we may have gone a little too fast at first, but then they hit their stride on the second and third days.  It was fun to watch the light bulbs turn on and the enthusiasm kick in!
As usual, for every day that I'm giving instruction, I learn just about as much as I teach.  Hooray for the educational process!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:18:49 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Who's Your Jack Welch?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whos_your_jack_welch.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was privileged recently to attend the American Society for Quality's World Conference in Houston, TX.  What an energetic gathering of quality-minded people!
One topic that I heard a lot of conversation about was concern for leadership of Lean and Six Sigma.  There were many stories shared of new deployments, attempted deployments, and failed deployments.  One question that I've been asking, when I hear these accounts, is "Who was your Jack Welch?"  In other words, who was the top executive that championed the initiative over all obstacles?
Too many times, I heard that the push for Lean or Six Sigma came from middle management - not a criticism of those individuals, of course, but if top executives don't catch the fever, then the initiative can be treated as a hobby for someone down below.  When the going gets tough, it's easy to fall back on an excuse such as "Six Sigma's not working for us."  As my MBB Todd Sperl used to say, it's the difference between support and commitment.
Therefore, it was not a big surprise to read, in Michael Marx's recent post Project Failure, that the number one reason for failure of Six Sigma projects was... no management support.  I suspect that could read, instead, no top-level executive support.
So now, when I come into an oragnization that says they're "doing" Six Sigma or Lean, I ask:  "Who's your Jack Welch?"  The answer is always illuminating.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 07:01:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: Project Failure: Eight Reasons by Minitab]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/project_failure_eight_reasons_by_minitab.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, I attended a Minitab Webinar showcasing the top 8 reasons Six Sigma projects fail.  Presented by Lou Johnson &amp; Cate Twohill.  Lou took care of the project failure segment (which was the vast majority) and Cate talked a bit about Minitab’s Quality Companion.  
First off they did a fantastic job. Lou’s history and experience with Six Sigma and statistics coupled with his passion for getting to the bottom of project failure…resulted in this fine presentation.  
The data was based off a survey of nearly 150 of Minitab’s customers at nearly 100 different companies.  And yes there were more than eight reasons for failure cited by respondents.  There were actually 42 reasons, but the top eight represented 62 percent of the total.  
Lou laid out the eight reasons with detailed explanations and examples for each reason.  I won’t go in to any detail besides listing them as Lou is sure to give this presentation again and again…
The Top Eight Reasons Six Sigma Projects Fail...
# 8 - The project solution was not implemented# 7 - Project scope too big# 6 - Not enough training# 5 - Project too small for DMAIC rigor# 4 - Project forced into DMAIC# 3 - Project had no data or bad data# 2 - Project not linked to Finances
and the #1 reason Six Sigma projects fail...No management support
The biggest takeaway was, as Lou described it, “Rule #1: Pick the right project.”  Four of the top eight reasons can be attributed to project selection (now comes my favorite part of the presentation, the iSixSigma research quote):

“While only 32% of respondents in organizations with new (less than one year) Six Sigma programs frequently or always use a formal prioritization process, 63% percent of those in organizations with five to ten years experience with Six Sigma do.” iSixSigma Magazine, March/April 2005
Throughout the presentation Lou offered a simple solution to each of the failure modes, and in most cases the solution could be found utilizing one of the features of Minitab’s Quality Companion.  
Thank you Minitab for sharing these findings. Below are some additional articles from iSixSigma about project failure. As you read them you will find that they support Minitab’s findings as well as offer a few other failure modes to consider. 
Tips and Suggestions for Six Sigma Project Success by Simon Bodie
Why Projects Fail by Holly Hawkins
How to Face Failed 6 Sigma Projects iSixSigma Discussion Forum
Understanding Six Sigma Deployment Failures by Mike Carnell
Project Selection Research by Jonathan Atwood, iSixSigma Magazine, March/April 2005
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:29:14 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Six Sigma for Healthcare]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_six_sigma_for_healthcare.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Quite a few Black Belts from manufacturing environments have told me, "I don't know anything about healthcare, but my industry is in a downturn so I'm looking for a Black Belt job in a hospital.  I figure I can pick up the lingo once I'm there."
I've also been asked to speak to Industrial and Process Engineers who wanted to learn about healthcare so they could apply for jobs in that sector.
Now, I'm in full agreement that healthcare is a hotbed of opportunity for applying Lean and Six Sigma concepts!  And I applaud people who are willing to step out of their comfort zones to try something in a new area.  So here are some tips for Process Improvement Experts seeking to transition from another industry into healthcare.
Things you should NEVER say when discussing Lean Six Sigma with healthcare providers:
1.  "Even though Lean and Six Sigma were developed in manufacturing environments, it's directly applicable to treating patients - after all, it's just like moving widgets down the assembly line!"  (Trust me - this will be perceived as an insult.)
2.  "Everyone will need to do standard work - there's no room for creativity in healthcare processes!"  (Healthcare workers pride themselves on their ability to solve problems in a creative way - lead them gently into the concept of standard work for individual tasks, first.)
3.  "We'll start by giving everyone three days of training in statistical analysis - let's begin with the nursing staff."  (The most polite thing the nurses will do is roll their eyes - anything that takes them away from providing patient care will be suspect.)
4.  "Patient Registration is an area that's non-value-added."  (Don't tell the finance department, and the caregivers who depend on registration information such as emergency contact numbers, that putting accurate information into the computer system isn't a "vital x" for their functions!)
5.  "Doctors are not customers - they're only providers."  (Whoa!  Physicians need to be treated as co-customers with patients - since doctors order tests and treatments, and interpret them on behalf of their patients - and decide which hospital to admit their patients to!)
So - there's your short course for Lean Six Sigma in Healthcare!  Can you think of anything else that should NEVER be said, in healthcare or other industries???]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:37:12 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Life After Black Belt?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/life_after_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Today's question comes from the realm of business etiquette.  Since I didn't think Miss Manners would have the answer, I'm asking in this forum.
Traditionally, when an organization begins deployment of Six Sigma, "Black Belts" are hired, trained, and certified by their company or an outside vendor.  After some years of service, some Black Belts rotate back out into the world of operations.
When this happens, are you a Black Belt (ret)?  Former Black Belt?  Still a Black Belt, even if it's not still your official title?  If you're certified, do you still put your credentials behind your name?  Or is that just a vanity, if you're not in a Black Belt position?
Inquiring minds want to know!  If you've made the transition from a full-time Black Belt role into a different position, or know someone who has managed this move, please share your opinions &amp; experiences!  
Thanks on behalf of future former Black Belts!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:35:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Cash: The Biggest “Y” of All]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/cash_the_biggest_y_of_all.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
Every Six Sigma project is (or should be) built around improving a primary process metric: the Big Y. From there, we drill down into the critical factors, as measured by the “little y’s” – if we can improve the right factors, the primary metric will improve, and we can all declare victory and move on. 
 
One frequent frustration of green and black belts is that getting resources and priority on their improvement projects is difficult, leading to long project cycle times and a sense of disappointment and anti-climax when the control phase comes to an end. It doesn’t need to be this way.
 
Which brings me to the title of this piece: Cash. Recently I read a post on a Lean discussion board in response to a question about what metrics to use in valuing lean projects. An astute poster replied: cashflow. Reduced inventory and defects, more efficient use of materials and labor, and increased throughput will all find their way to the bottom line. The cash levels of the company are one of the best ways to measure health. Conversely, if the cash situation is not improving, that should prompt an evaluation of current projects, especially if expense reduction as an explicit or implicit goal of Lean Six Sigma at the company. 
 
The financial piece of Lean Six Sigma projects is often viewed as a necessary evil by Green and Black belts – for many, the language of accounting and finance is as engaging as the finer details of two-way ANOVA with replication and blocking. Many companies don’t have activity based costing for manufacturing processes, let alone transactional ones, and the process of establishing the financial opportunity for a Lean Six Sigma effort can seem like non-value-added activity.
 

Let me suggest that Black Belts and Master Black Belts would be wise to spend time with a CFO or Controller, to understand what the business leaders are looking at to run the business. Take the time to understand the difference between the Balance Sheet and the Income Statement, Net Present Value and Internal Rate of Return, EBITDA and Cashflow. Your business leaders may in fact be paying far closer attention to these metrics than process metrics. And the next time you have to explain how your projects affect the company, you can speak the language of business – cash.
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[James Considine]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: House, M.D.]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/house_md.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While flipping around the channels a while ago, I happened to catch an episode of "House."  This show, for those unfamiliar with it, features a physician in a hospital setting.  He's faced with patients who have complex and puzzling disease conditions that he must diagnosis in order to save their lives.  I was intrigued, at first.
But after watching a few episodes, I found the plot of each episode to be similar.  House is confronted with a patient who has puzzling symptoms.  He guesses one diagnosis, and makes his residents do all kinds of diagnostic tests.  Sometimes he treats on the basis of his presumptive diagnosis, and this can lead to complications.  Then, when the first guess doesn't prove correct, he makes another guess and has his residents do lots more diagnostic testing, sometimes invasive.  Again, presumptive treatment may result in adverse effects.  When the puzzle still isn't solved, he tries a third time and (you guessed it) after further diagnostic tests, he hits on the correct solution and now can give the patient the treatment they've needed all along.
This may make for compelling medical drama, but I hope my own physician has a better diagnostic track record than House seems to have.
Upon reflection, I realized that it reminded me about how we improved our business processes before we started to use Lean and Six Sigma.  Often, the leader would guess at what was wrong with a process, come up with a solution, write the memo, and then be surprised when the expected improvement didn't appear.  Sometimes, the process became even less effective.  Then, it was "back to the drawing board" and another solution from the mind of the leader would get published as a memo.  And so on.
I am very happy to have learned a more  effective method for facilitating change in the business (in my case, healthcare) environment.  With leadership commitment, engagement of the front-line workers and stakeholders, setting targets according to the customer's CTQs, analyzing the process in order to create solutions, and using statistical process control to sustain the gains, we can produce positive change that gets the organization closer to where it needs to be to remain competitive.
Will anybody ever pitch a drama to the networks that uses a Lean / Six Sigma Black Belt as its protagonist?  But then, it's not very dramatic to show someone following a proven methodology to create streamlined, effective processes, is it???]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:57:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Achieving Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/achieving_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There's a great quote from Shakespeare's "Twelfth Night" that I was thinking of today, in relation to how we teach lean.  The character Malvolio says, "Be not afraid of greatness.  Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em."
So, with apologies to Will...
"Some are born lean, some achieve lean, and some have lean thrust upon 'em."
When our organization started to explore lean methods, we were informed that we would learn by doing.  No classes!  (That sure felt like having lean "thrust upon us" at the time.)  The Toyota way is to teach lean as an integral part of the job, as the tasks are learned.  In our situation, since we weren't "born lean," our sensei taught us tools and concepts throughout the first Rapid Improvement Event.  When we asked how we could learn to lead events ourselves, we were told that we would have to do hundreds of events before we could consider ourselves to be senseis.
Well, I confess - we didn't listen.  We incorporated lean concepts and tools into our classes and taught our leaders lean right along with Six Sigma.  We even renamed our Green Belts as Lean Green Belts.  We started running our own events and had many successes - some failures, but with overall effectiveness.
So although we weren't born lean, we seem to have figured out how to work toward achieving lean.
The question that I'm pondering is, how do other organizations approach this issue?  Do you teach lean concepts and tools to your employees in a classroom setting?  Or do you espouse the "learn-by-doing" philosophy?  I'm interested to find out what has worked for you.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:18:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean?  or Mean?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_or_mean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was privileged to speak at a conference in San Francisco last weekend, sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Pathology.  The topics focused on leadership in the clinical (medical) laboratory.  After giving a presentation on 6S, I served as a panel member for questions submitted from the audience.  One of the questions asked, "What can we do when our leadership tells us we have to do Lean Six Sigma so we can cut employees from the payroll?"
Our panel, in an unrehearsed answer, all chimed in:  "That's not Lean, that's Mean!!!"
Although some hospitals have been using Lean and Six Sigma for the past several years, it's still relatively new in healthcare.  With the threat of decreasing reimbursements from national and private healthcare insurers, and increasing demand for services, you might think lean was a natural fit for improving quality while decreasing costs.  However, there were many at the conference who had experience of consultants offering to prove that they could use Lean and/or Six Sigma to decrease "the payroll burden."  In those cases, quality seemed to take a back seat to so-called productivity.
Now, my lean training didn't come directly from a Toyota sensei, but I've been informed that, at Toyota, the Toyota Production System is not used to generate layoffs; that the employees who are no longer needed in a certain part of the organization are redeployed, with some becoming dedicated to full-time quality/process improvement.
Can I ask our expert readers to weigh in on this?  What should our response be, when confronted by consultants who sell Lean (and Six Sigma) as a way to cut the payroll?  Or am I hopelessly naive, in today's environment, to think that we can retain "respect for people" as an aspect of any process improvement methodology?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:02:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Speaking of Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/speaking_of_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I'm asked to do a presentation, for corporate training or national conferences, I always try to present in a style that reflects how we practice lean six sigma.
How do you gain buy-in in any change process?  By having the group participate in the discussion or decision!  So, I add interactive segments into my presentations wherever possible.
At one conference I was caught by surprise - I thought my presentation was scheduled for 40 minutes and made my slides accordingly, but when I arrived and checked the official schedule, my time slot said 75 minutes.  Oops!  I'd already submitted my slides months before, with timing that allowed for some interactive Q&amp;A during the talk, and the handouts were already published.  What could I to a) fill the time slot while b) using the 40-minute slides I'd prepared and c) looking as if it was planned that way all along?
I decided to add interactive segments in addition to the pre-planned Q&amp;A sections.  After each part of the presentation, which focused on using 6S in the clinical (hospital) laboratory setting, I asked participants to "buddy up" in twos or threes to discuss what issues they had in their labs related to each S.  It turned out that almost every lab had a "junk room" (the better to practice sorting), cabinets and drawers that weren't labeled (the better to practice straightening), etc.  After each buddy session, I would ask the group for examples of what had been discussed.  These worthwhile conversations had the effect of energizing the group, made the time fly (and I ended right on time), and as an added bonus, my talk received high scores on the evaluation form.  I was even invited to give the presentation again at this year's conference.
Do you use a similar tactic when giving a presentation or training?  I'd love to learn about more examples from our expert speakers and trainers out there!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:48:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Salary Webcast]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_salary_webcast.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mark your calendars…Tuesday March 4th, at 11 a.m. Eastern…The iSixSigma Global Salary Survey webcast.  Attendance is free of charge. Just register to attend with your name and an email address.
I’ll be your host along with Brad Hopper of Spotfire. Together we’ll dive into the Fifth Annual iSixSigma Global Salary Survey.  This year we’ve loaded the salary data into Spotfire’s business analytics software which will be the vehicle to guide you through a virtual analysis that you just won’t see anywhere else.  
We’ll slice and dice the data right before your eyes, showing you year to year salary trends broken down by Six Sigma role, regions, experience, education, and industry.  
The best part about attending the webcast (besides getting to listen to me ramble) is you will have the chance to download a sample set of the salary data in the Spotfire application and play with it yourself.  
Whether you’re an HR executive or deployment leader looking to benchmark salaries against the industry or a Black Belt working hard to become a Master Black Belt… the webcast and downloadable data will inform you and arm you with the data you need to make those salary decisions.  
I am looking forward to meeting each of you on March 4th.  
Register for the webacst
]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:40:01 -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: A Control Phase for Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_control_phase_for_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My healthcare organization uses a version of Lean Six Sigma that may be familiar to some of you.
First, project definition through hoshin kanri (enterprise value stream mapping and value stream analysis).
Define - VOC, CTQs, and performance specifications.
Measure - Value Stream Mapping with analysis of data.
Analyze - Waste Walk, Spaghetti Mapping, and statistical analysis where appropriate.
Lean - Improvenent through Rapid Improvement or Kaizen events
Control/Sustain - Accountability for the WWW and weekly Process Owner meetings to ensure that the new process is stable and meeting targets.
The last phase is usually found to be the hardest.  We've gone through several evolutions trying to find the best way to follow up on projects, bearing in mind the resources needed to continually collect data and also the need to help Process Owners and Black Belts stay sane.
Early learning:  don't get carried away in the control phase with identifying data collection at every process step.  Select the 2 - 5 key variables to monitor; Process Owners are not going to be able to maintain a 25-point data collection plan in an environment where all data is manually collected from charts, paper records, or computer files.
Also:  use more than one method to track success.  We started with the dashboard approach - red, yellow, green - and found that some people tended to make snap judgments about the success or failure of a project.  We now combine the dashboard with a trend analysis to show ongoing improvement after the rapid improvement event.
Are there any more learnings that you would like to share from your own organization, to help your improved processes to sustain their gains?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:59:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Textron CEO on Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/textron_ceo_on_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[USA Today reporter Del Jones interviews Textron CEO Lewis Campbell. This is an outstanding Q&amp;A session with a CEO who knows Six Sigma.  Finally, a mainsteam media outlet that goes right to the source for information about the success of Six Sigma.
Nine tough questions, nine solid answers.  I especially liked the final question about QualPro’s S&amp;P 500 “study”.  Mr. Campbell hinted we should do a Six Sigma project on that study…I bet even if we did an MVT study on the Six Sigma study we’d find holes…but, I digress.
Textron is in its fifth year of a corporate-wide Six Sigma initiative, and yet, CEO Lewis Campbell still says they are “maybe 30 yards down a 100-yard football field. We’re going all the way.”
This interview is a powerful read and will give a company thinking about Six Sigma a few words to the wise:  

“A mistake companies make is they don’t aim projects at solving problems for the last time or create some bodacious way to satisfy customers better than anyone else.”
“You can also use it (Six Sigma) to help your customers eliminate waste, although I would caution not to do that when launching a program. We’re mature enough to do that now.”
“I believe everybody wants to do a better job tomorrow than they did yesterday.”
Textron gets Six Sigma right in word and deed.  Now go spread that word. 
Executive Suite: Textron CEO zeroes in on Six Sigma, USA Today, January 21, 2008]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:06:55 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean on Me]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_on_me.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We graduated another Lean Six Sigma class last week.  Our version of Lean Six Sigma is based on the DMAIC structure and Lean tools that works well in our healthcare organization, and this was our 8th class since October 2006.
Just before we handed out the certificates for course completion, the hospital President who took the class said, "I have an activity that I'd like to do at this point."  Of course I said, sure!  I thought he wanted to give the class a little pep talk about completing the course or something similar.
It turned out that he modified the lyrics to the Bill Withers song, and sang them with the class of 45 providing the chorus.  Sample -
When - you get turned down - at a wedding for the Poke Yoke dance, LEAN ON ME
When - your spouse or significant other - drives you to your upper control limit, LEAN ON ME
If - you think the black belts have invited you to an Italian dinner - and you find it's spaghetti mapping, LEAN ON ME
If - you think you're going to meet Leonard Nimoy - and all you get is a SIPOC, LEAN ON ME
There were about 15 more verses.  Needless to say, the entire class went into hysterics of laughter.  The fact that one of our hospital Presidents had taken the time to put Lean Six Sigma lyrics to a song - and then sing it to the class - spoke volumes about his commitment, and engaged the entire group in a way that was meaningful to all.  And, a lot of fun as well!
President Joe Tasse of St. John Macomb-Oakland Hospital made our certificate ceremony one that will stay in our memories for a long time!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:38:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: 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: 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: Team Excellence]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/team_excellence.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have had the fortune to serve twice on the ASQ's International Team Excellence Awards judging panel.  It's not the entries that I want to talk about, but the experience of serving on the panel.
The details of the competition and the criteria are posted on the ASQ website, www.asq.org.  When I volunteered to serve as a judge, I was looking for a professional development opportunity - and to be honest, to try to understand the criteria fully in case we ever wanted to submit a team ourselves.
The criteria are very clearly spelled out - and during breaks in our judges' training session, I started to think about our own teams.  My organization has done quite a few Lean Rapid Improvement Events and Six Sigma projects.  And the very first criteria had me questioning whether we couldn't improve the quality of our own teams by using the criteria as guidelines - not rules to slavishly follow, but issues to check as we moved forward with our future teams.
1.  Explain the methods used to choose the project.
     a.  Describe the types of data and quality tools used to select the project, and why they were used.
     b.  Explain the reasons why the project was selected.
     c.  Describe the involvement of potential stakeholders in project selection.
In the past, we didn't involve our stakeholders in project selection.  Now, you may be laughing because you have ALWAYS involved your stakeholders, but when we started we just picked the topics that people complained about the most.  As we have moved from a project-based approach to a philosophy of Lean Six Sigma in operations, we have gotten better at this, but it was definitely something we had to learn to do!
So in addition to finding out how to use the criteria to judge the team entries, I took home a new appreciation for just how many areas we need to focus on to ensure a good team experience, as well as a good project outcome.
I encourage team leaders to check the criteria, if they haven't already, to see whether some of the items could be helpful in guiding your next project endeavor.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:12:41 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Feedback, Schmeedback]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/feedback_schmeedback.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When my fellow Black Belts and I facilitate, or teach, we ask the participants to give us feedback at the end of each session.  We use the plus-delta format that we inherited from our original consultants, by dividing a flip-chart page into two columns for the "plusses" (things that worked well, were meaningful, or strengths) and the "deltas" (things that didn't work well, could be improved, or were weaknesses.
By now, we've collected so many of these plus-delta flip charts that we can almost predict the outcomes on both sides.  Plusses are things like fast pace, kept to schedule, good exercises, good team interaction, the food.  Deltas are things like room too hot, room too cold, could have been done in a shorter time, needed more time, the food.
Initially, the plus-deltas were very informative and we learned a lot about what participants liked and disliked.  Many of us modified our style based on the feedback, and we made revisions to the structure of our classes and the presentations in our project meetings.
After all this time, it's tempting to say, "I know what will come up on the plus-delta so I'm not going to bother to do them any more."
There are still a couple of good reasons to keep doing the plus-deltas, though.
One is, that asking for feedback and comments is a team-building activity, especially when we return the favor in the next session and talk about the comments (without defending or excusing as a form of response!).
Another is, that even in the midst of the familiar feedback, there may be a grain or two of truth to be gleaned that no-one else has thought to mention.  If we didn't ask for the participants' thoughts, we might miss an insight into something that could have a major beneficial impact as a result.
Also, we as facilitators should practice what we preach.  "Don't assume that you know what your customers want without asking them!"  So we should model the behavior.
A last comment - now that we can, in most cases, guess what most of the comments will be, we are trying to improve our quality by asking for the comments "in real time."  For example, giving us a delta that there were too many sidebar conversations, at the end of the day, can't help us to correct that situation.  So now we may make a suggestion at the beginning of the session that if a team member has any feedback about the content, pace, or team interaction, that the comment or suggestion be shared right away.  In this way, we can get consensus from the team about the need to adapt, and we can solve any problem quickly before it distracts other people on the team.
We still plan to continue using the plus-deltas; looking on them as a source of VOC has helped us to realize their on-going value.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:57:49 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Business Line-of-Site]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/business_line_of_site.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Whether it’s a Six Sigma deployment, a project, a training class or metrics, one variable stands out as the ultimate gauge of success:  Business Line-of-Site.   Yes, I meant "Site" not "Sight".  It’s more than just seeing the path to the destination.  It’s about actively targeting it.
When you are passionate about something, it is easy to get wrapped up in the means versus the end.  But the ultimate measure of success in any Six Sigma deployment is the ability to define how it has made the business better.  It’s not about improvement for the sake of improvement or learning for the sake of learning.  For example, you may have the most rigorous green belt training and certification program in the industry, but if the belts don’t understand how to translate what they have learned to make the business better then they are just ’belts’ instead of masters of business improvement.
So next time you scope a project, develop metrics, or get ready to implement an improvement, remember, the question is always the same:  "How will completing this activity make the business better?"   It is your answer to this question that will determine if you are "on target".   ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:25:53 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Pair of Six Sigma Jacks]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/a_pair_of_six_sigma_jacks.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[




Jack Welch in an interview talks about what it means to be a Six Sigma Company alongside Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) and his take on Six Sigma.  Enjoy.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:33:20 -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: Gearing Up for Success]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/gearing_up_for_success.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just got back from Philadelphia where I spoke at a conference on how to design a training strategy to support organization-wide Six Sigma learning.   Entitled "Gearing Up for Success", it focused on the linkage that must always be maintained between the training strategy /curriculum and business objectives.    Without this, it’s easy for training to become disconnected from what the business is trying to achieve.    Here are just a few highlights of the topics covered:

Before launching a training initiative, long-term organization-wide learning objectives that support the deployment strategy must be defined or else you may find yourself training for the sake of training.
The learning strategy should identify how many, how much and how fast.  
People need to understand how what they learn can be applied.  In other words, they must be able to answer the question:  "How did my learning Six Sigma skills make the business better?"
Enabling skills, such as change management, team dynamics and project management, that can increase the effectiveness of  identifying and implementing improvements should be included in the curriculum (either adhoc or as a separate offering)

In order for your organization to embrace the skills and behavioral changes necessary to sustain ongoing continuous improvement, the organization-wide learning strategy must complement the business strategy.  If not, you may find yourself a victim of the "Amoeba Principle".  What’s that?  Tune in next week and find out!
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:35:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Cultural Pyramid]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_cultural_pyramid.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Having worked on many process improvement projects across multiple SBU’s in my organization in the Sri-Lankan apparel industry, a primary factor that determines the success or failure of any project is the level of cultural acceptance and support a project or practitioner receives from various levels of an organization. 
Overtime the Sri-Lankan apparel industry has evolved from a highly operationally focused model to a modern manufacturing one today. The recognition and importance of process methodologies as an effective tool in streamlining both manufacturing and transactional processes is widely being acknowledged across the industry with more and more companies now initiating and implementing some sort of process improvement driven methodology. 
Given the operational bias that still persists in the industry, in order to successfully implement process methodologies such as Six Sigma, practitioners need to be able to successfully sell projects to a range of stakeholders across the management hierarchy. I find it easy to categorize the process owners into 5 strata as depicted in the “Cultural-Pyramid” as indicated in figure (1). 
The roles of various stakeholders across the management hierarchy in relation to their cultural significance are also described.
Figure (1): The Cultural Pyramid 
By evaluating the expectation and influence of each stakeholder in the pyramid, one can identify the expectations of each of the respective stakeholders. By developing a communication strategy for each (relevant) level in the cultural pyramid at the onset of a project the net result was an appreciation of the potential of process methodologies at a “Grassroots” level.  For lower levels of an organization, basic exposure and awareness about the core concepts of a methodology at the initial stages has been an effective way to lay the foundation on which to extend the use of more advanced process methodologies such as Six Sigma.   
The cultural pyramid also serves as an effective communication channel, whereby if necessary issues could be escalated to the highest level, quickly and effectively, thus facilitating the implementation of process methodologies in an organization.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Zakir Ahamed]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:03:18 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 12 Angry Men (1957)]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/12_angry_men_1957.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
The first time I watched Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men (1957) was four years back, at a Six Sigma leadership workshop. We were only 3 days into a two week long training, and some of us were already stretched to optimal stress levels. Being a bit more of an action buff, and being after a buffet lunch when training resumed I thought I’d grab extra coffee just in case. Little did I know a few years down the road I would have watched this movie a few more times.
Except for a bathroom break scene almost the entire movie takes place in the jury room. The film starts off in a relaxed manner- except for Henry Fonda most of the jurors are more than eager to vote and ‘get out of here....’. Tension and conflict increases as the story unfolds. I read in a web article Sidney Lumet used wide angle lens at the beginning of the movie but the cameras closes up as the movie progresses thus creating that claustrophobic feel. Rain and the sweat of the afternoon add to the effect too.
12 jurors- 12 totally different contrasting characters- the big arrogant bully, the thinker, the wise, the amiable, the persistent and persuasive, the follower, placed in conflict; read ‘corporate world’ please. No wonder this film is a favorite case study in corporate trainings. Straight and engrossing. No special effects, but plain tight intense acting. Tough guy Lee J. Cobb delivers the last jury vote in classic style. Henry Fonda’s character, Juror Number 8, reminds me of the Six Sigma guy- alone in opinion at the beginning, but having the facts separated from perception. Along the movie, he craftily tackles the different social styles of the competition and challenges their opinion. This character teaches a thing or two about staying focused on course and not buckling under pressure. The best scenes are the moments of buy-in as the camera zooms in on each character.
I would say, Results= Persistence + Buy-in!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Vincent Chin]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:45:49 -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: Voice of the Customer]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/voice_of_the_customer.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like many organizations, ours began their Six Sigma deployment with a consultant-based training and project mentorship.  We were successful at internalizing the training, and we've used a value-stream approach to selecting improvement projects, but the process owners never seemed to be the ones to light the fire - most wait to be tapped on the shoulder and told there was a project planned in their area.  We realized that we were in danger of having a passive, Black-Belt-driven approach become our standard.
Through a lot of discussion by our Master Black Belt to bring that issue to our leaders' attention, we've redesigned our Green Belt coursework to focus on tools for improvements that process owners can do even outside of a formal project structure (although we teach that too!).  
To build on that, our CEO recently gave a new challenge to our leaders.  For their annual performance goals, each leader was asked to determine the "voice of the customer" for their area of responsibility and then to implement a change based on the customers' needs, where targets were not being met.
WOW!  All of a sudden, all those lectures on VOC and CTQs became important to remember - leaders didn't have the luxury of waiting for a Black Belt to appear with a project idea.  Most leaders began to get actively engaged in seeking out customer feedback.  Many had relied on customer-survey scores without delving deeper into the 5 why's, or had relied on occasional feedback rather than active communication.  Now the area of Operational Improvement looms a lot larger in their annual performance evaluation goal-setting.
As many surveys have shown, executive engagement and commitment is one of the make-or-breaks of successful deployment.  We are fortunate to be in the "plus column" in this area.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:25:02 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Project Management Expertise]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/project_management_expertise.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A fellow Black Belt and I were talking about project management skills.  She made a very perceptive comment, which I will paraphrase:
"Some people are really good at setting up a project - the ability to identify needed tasks, sources of benchmarking information, delegating, putting everything into a timeframe.  And others are really good about implementing change - they can work with people to visualize the future state, dissolve resistance and facilitate through the sometimes-chaotic change process to arrive at a successful new process.  Ideally of course, you would have both sets of skills."
I think that I can do the first part pretty well - but I most enjoy helping people to see that they can change their environment in a positive and productive way.
It reminded me of an interview question I once fielded about which DMAIC phase was my favorite.  Not which one was I best at - but which one I enjoyed the most.  My answer was "Define" - helping people see the customer expectations and opening up the possibility of changing to a future state in which both the customer and the employees were better off.
Of course, that doesn't mean I can slack off on the other phases!!!
What about you, dear reader - do you have a favorite phase or part of project management?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:56:54 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Will Medicare Force Hospitals to Go Six Sigma?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/will_medicare_force_hospitals_to_go_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was driving to pick up my daughter from school yesterday when a story on National Public Radio (NPR) caught my attention. I only heard the end of the segment on the radio, but from what I could tell Medicare was forcing hospitals to change the way they do business by not paying for certain medical procedures.
Here’s the full story:
Starting in October 2008, Medicare will cease to compensate hospitals for treating patients having at least eight conditions, including common hospital-acquired infections, blatant surgical errors, and injuries that result from a fall. The reasoning is that these are not the primary reasons patients came to the hospital in the first place. Instead, these are a result of coming to the hospital (yes, going to a hospital can be detrimental to your health) and Medicare is essentially saying: "Your hospital processes are broken. Fix them. We’re not paying for your errors any longer."
Why is this so significant? According to Julie Rovner of NPR, Medicare (which is a federal program) "…pays about 40 percent of the nation’s annual hospital bills." This is going to significantly cut in the funding of almost every hospital in the United States.
Within the news story Nancy Foster - who is in charge of quality and patient safety issues for the American Hospital Association - is quoted as saying, "People may wake up in the middle of the night, need to use the restroom, not remember that the nurse instructed them to call for help first - or think they were OK, go to stand up and find out that the surgery they had has weakened them so that they are unable to support their own weight and fall to the floor and be injured. No one wants that to happen. We just don’t have a perfect strategy to prevent it."
I beg to differ with Ms. Foster. The fact remains that falls can be proactively prevented in hospitals. Fortune 1000 companies have entire organizations devoted to worker safety (typically under the Environment Health and Safety umbrella), and employees in this function have the sole purpose to prevent worker injuries. What is measured can be improved. Why can’t the same thing be done for patients within hospitals? It can.
Searching iSixSigma Healthcare revealed at least one example speaking to this point. In "Strategies for Improving Patient Safety in the Hospital" Carolyn Pexton describes how Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC) took their post-operative surgical infection process sigma from 0 (yes, that’s zero; defects per million opportunities of 660,828) to 2.86, thereby improving their process by 91 percent. This is cause for a celebration and the results shared with as many other healthcare organizations as possible.
Should all hospitals go Six Sigma? Lucian Leape of the Harvard School of Public Health comments: "It’s clear that progress in patient safety has relied on altruism. It’s been largely accomplished by good people trying to do the right thing. And what we’re seeing is that that hasn’t gotten as far enough, and now we’ll go to what really stings in our society - which is money."
To me, it’s clear that Six Sigma - tied to the hospitals operating budget - is the answer. What has been done until now has not worked. It’s time for a change.
The January/February 2008 issue of iSixSigma Magazine will feature 3 of the top ten healthcare organizations in the United States, and how implementing Six Sigma is improving patient safety and results. If you’re not signed up for a subscription, take $5 off and sign up today. It could be a matter of life and death. :
A quick search of NPR.org revealed the story in detail which, if you work for a healthcare provider or healthcare providers are your customers, is a great read:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13872687
The audio can be heard at by clicking the  icon at the top of the page. It’s worth a listen.
Press Release: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Announces Payment Reforms for Inpatient Hospital Services in 2008]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Healthcare&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:18:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Variation and special cause: Discovering the facts]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/variation_and_special_cause_discovering_the_facts.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Conformance is how well a process performs within its CTQs and specification limits. Variation is the opposite of it- the difference in the process output over time. Variation is often caused by elements which are part of the process itself (common cause), or elements which are external to the process (special cause). 
Common Cause variation is effected by elements within the process. They are mostly random and independent of each other; conforming to the normal distribution curve ie stable. However, a stable process does not mean good or satisfactory output- it merely means the process is consistent within specification limits and the variations are contained within these limits. In the formula y=f(x), there are many x’s but low impact x’s (described in iSix Sigma’s dictionary). Tweak the process to get improvements in output. 
Special Causes of variation are arising from unusual circumstances. They are not random, do not reflect historical trends and is not normally distributed. If Special Cause variation is detected in a process this process is considered not stable. In the formula y=f(x), there are few x’s but high impact x’s (described in iSix Sigma’s dictionary). It’s probably not a good idea to change the process first, but dig deeper into the root cause of this kind of variation. Tweaking the process won’t make the special cause variation disappear because these variations may have nothing to do with the process. Introducing a process change may result in worse variation than before -the normal ‘ups and downs’ of the process may turn into irregular spikes. 
Hotels sell ‘moods’ and ‘senses’- it’s inevitable these elements influence comment forms or process output but what’s the connection between variation cause and customer experience? This brings us back to that particular set of dots outside specification limits in that project run chart that had the food &amp; beverage team bewildered. If the Five Whys and Cause-And-Effect can’t provide a direction, it’s time to look at the ‘history’ of the guest who contributed to the data point. Were there any complaints logged on this particular guest prior to this project’s process? In the hotel industry, the guest goes through processes back-to-back. Any ‘unhappiness’ or ‘joy’ from the previous process is retained and brought forward to the next process, the degree which depends on how the guest interacts with hotel employees, hotel products and the customer recovery process. For instance, the guest ‘suffers’ a ‘bad’ check-in (room not ready &amp; guest waits unreasonably; assigned a smoking instead of a non-smoking room, failed elevator, etc.) and is still unhappy at dinner time gives a poor rating to the food &amp; beverage service. Properly identifying data points like this tells a clearer picture of project performance- what to change and what not to change.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Vincent Chin]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:17:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Black Belt Ranks]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/black_belt_ranks.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the martial arts, you may know that once a person obtains a black belt there are usually levels of progression upwards.  Each of these levels is called a "dan" and there can be 3 or more progressive levels, sometimes designated with a stripe or tape around the end of the black belt.
We've taken that concept as a beginning for a career development plan for Black Belts.  We ask for a 2 - 3 year commitment as part of our hiring process, and hire new Black Belts at a "novice" level if they have not previously been certified as a Black Belt elsewhere.  After training and internal certification, and meeting other organizational requirements, they are promoted to "practitioner" level.
At this point, we start discussing possible future paths:  Continued learning in project management and expanding the focus of the projects; or possibly going back into operations and a Green Belt level of participation; or possibly upwards to incorporate more teaching and mentoring.  In the last case, the level is called "sensei" and can be obtained through a number of ways, demonstrating effectiveness in project management, teaching of our Operational Excellence courses, and formal mentoring programs.
Each of these levels has a salary band within the Black Belt wage range, and the promotion process includes preparation of a portfolio to be presented to a group of executives who will consider the appropriateness of the promotion.
We've put this structure together in the last several months, and will be setting up the first portfolio reviews this fall.
I'm working whether there are any other Black Belt level concepts, like this one, being used "out there?"  If so, please share!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 07:44:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Basics: CTQs &amp; VOC translation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_basics_ctqs_amp_voc_translation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[CTQs, short for Critical-To-Quality, are key quantifiable requirements of a service or product which are critical to meet customer expectations and often defined by customer expectations. It’s what the customer expects of our product or service. Customer expectations and comments which are gathered from surveys or comment forms for a particular area of service are translated (Diagram 1) into meaning groupings using affinity diagramming. The critical requirement (CTQs) for the issues is identified thereon from the translation table.
 
Diagram 1
 
VOC translation
 




Customer Comment

Issue

Critical requirement


 
Slow room service
 

Responsiveness
Attentiveness
Shift scheduling
 

Deliver food to room in 20 minutes.

 
Subsequently, use the SIPOC (Diagram 2) to scope the project and identify the main key measures in the inputs &amp; outputs; and the process itself. The key measures should relate to CTQs and able to quantify CTQs
 
Diagram 2
 
SIPOC
 




Supplier

Input

Process

Output

Customer


Hotel employee
 
 
 

Food order

Pick up order
Send order to kitchen
Prepare food
Deliver food

Food

Hotel guest
 
 
Key measures
 




Input

Process

Output


Number of errors

Number of minutes

Number of minutes
 
In the hotel industry, expect changing expectations even from the same guest. Customer expectations may vary through the day and through different moods. Imagine this scenario related to the example above- if I am having a hectic day ahead, I’ll want my room service breakfast to be delivered to the room within 10 minutes; but in the evening, I wouldn’t care if dinner is delivered in 25 minutes because it’s the time I’d take for a hot dip in the jacuzzi. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Vincent Chin]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:22:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Green Around the Gills]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/green_around_the_gills.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While reading Gianna Clark's blog below, "Green Belt Sonic Boom," my first reaction was:  Great minds think alike!  We are in the starting phase of a boom of training, and all of Gianna's caveats are valuable.
Last year in October, our healthcare system started our internal training of Green Belts with a class of 40.  We planned to start courses in the fall, winter, and summer of each year.  The course includes 8 days of training, usually scheduled as 2 days each month, followed by a training project which is a requirement for certification.
The first and second classes went well.  Then the flywheel started to catch, and we were asked to start an additional class in April of this year.  By the end of this class, we had 100 Green Belts who had completed the training!  But, only 3 had become certified so far.  We had a discussion about what we would do if the number of Green Belts exceeded our ability to place them in training projects.  Our support structure includes an Executive Sponsor at each of our hospital sites and a few other Operating Units; 13 Six Sigma Black Belts deployed around the system, and our Master Black Belt who coordinates the deployment.  We have developed a schedule for projects using a Value Stream approach, and each Operating unit is active in 1 - 3 Value Streams at this time.
This June, our CEO announced that it would be an expectation for all leaders in the organization to become Green Belts.  The summer and fall classes quickly filled up.  One of our site Presidents asked for 2 additional sessions, in the summer and fall, so that all of her leaders could complete this requirement by December 2007.
Then another site Manager asked to have a session at her site in the fall.  At this rate, as of December 2007, we will have "graduated" 250 Green Belts, of whom 3 (so far) have completed certification.  (We also have about 50 Green Belts who completed DMAIC projects during the time that GE was providing our deployment training.)
So what can we do with all of these Green Belts, if we don't have enough projects for them after they complete the training? 
As of this summer, we have broadened our training, and renamed the course as Lean Management.  In addition to learning the DMAIC tools and structure, plus lean tools and approach, we are teaching about how to use these concepts to become Lean Six Sigma Managers as well as facilitators of improvement projects.  We give assignments during the course, to ensure that they use the basic tools, and there is a final (open book) exam at the end that we use as an educational capstone to the coursework.  We think that the move to Lean Six Sigma management of daily processes is something that will keep them engaged, whether or not they are involved in projects.
In parallel with these developments, we are working with our WorkLife Services department (human resources) to add language to our leadership performance expectations about using the tools and concepts in their daily operations, and about expectations for facilitation of improvement projects.  There is also some discussion about whether Green Belt certification should be a factor (or requirement) for internal promotions.
So:  Should we continue to offer Green Belt classes, until we have trained all of our 1000 leaders?  Should we call a halt until more of the Green Belts obtain their formal certification?  If all leaders are using Lean Six Sigma tools and concepts in their daily operations, is that more important - or less important - or equally important - when compared to formal certification and assignment to facilitate projects?
We're talking about all of those issues at our organization.  Thanks Gianna for your very pertinent comments on this topic!
How about the rest of you?  How have you dealt with the growth in your Green Belt ranks?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:44:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Project Rigor versus Project Cycle Time]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/project_rigor_versus_project_cycle_time.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For the Army deployment, this is " the year of production." We are in full swing of BB and GB training plus project completion for certification. The work in progress is pretty high. We have a full pipeline of newly trained belts itching to do projects. But with a constraint to complete x number by the end of the year, do we accept lower project rigor in order to finish? Then increase the rigor as we go along? Or do we ensure belts really understand how to go from "soup to nuts" on a project before releasing them into the wild?
Surely project mentoring is a huge part of the equation, but will we end up mentoring more once they are done or less? What is the right mix? 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Capt. Harris]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Military]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:03:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Durable and Great]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/durable_and_great.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The following is the Open Mike column from the July/August 2007 issue of iSixSigma Magazine, entitled "Durable and Great."
During the last 50 years, companies around the world have focused on operational excellence - the near-flawless execution of business processes. The pursuit of process excellence has evolved through various structured forms, from TQM to Six Sigma to Lean Six Sigma. These methods have helped companies drive ever-higher levels of performance.  
But a singular concentration on operational excellence only helps a company execute existing processes "better, faster and cheaper," a phrase coined by former General Electric Co. (GE) CEO Jack Welch. Granted, an improvement can be breakthrough in nature. However, today more and more CEOs are recognizing that they also must focus time and resources on innovation - the successful development and launch of new products or services (not merely variations of current ones) that grow revenue and produce higher margins. 
Of course, innovation cannot be pursued in and of itself. Innovation is the complement to operational excellence in the equation to create what Intuit Inc. President and CEO Steve Bennett calls "durable and great" companies. As Bennett described in a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, some companies are good at execution, which allows them to be "durable." Other companies are good at innovation, which allows them to be "great." To be both is his aspiration for Intuit. Perhaps more executives should have the same goal for their organization. 
Companies that are likely to be acknowledged as both durable and great include many of the brand names we have come to recognize for consistently delivering high-quality and innovative products and services: Intel Corp., Sony Corp., Apple Inc., Dell Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and GE. These companies benefit from disciplined processes, from product concept, to design, to production and distribution.
Like any business imperative, innovation depends on planning, strategy and execution. It requires and deserves the same rigor and diligent attention to process details as Lean Six Sigma has brought to operational excellence. Design for Six Sigma, the Six Sigma counterpart for developing something new, is one way to go about it. Companies must adopt such specific methods for generating innovation - and resist relying on the inspired, but erratic, genius of a few people.
Adding rigor or structure to the process of innovation, however, does not have to mean burdensome bureaucracy. Nor does it mean creativity is stifled. In a recent exercise in creativity, Mark Dziersk, an instructor at Northwestern University's engineering design center, gave his students 30 seconds to write down 15 ways a cat and a refrigerator are alike. Many students were paralyzed by the task. Dziersk then continued the exercise by adding just a bit of organization. He asked students to group into teams of three and try again. The results were strikingly different: Students identified many similarities between the pet and the appliance - they purr; they both hate water; often they're black or white. A simple structure was all that was needed to unleash the students' creativity.
Your CEO will tell you that the business must innovate to continue to grow. This is what you can tell your CEO: Taking a page from operational excellence initiatives like Lean Six Sigma will make innovation more successful because they enable companies to execute the great ideas of the organization - and to do it better, faster and cheaper.
During the next 50 years, companies will focus on structured innovation as the way to roll out new products and services. To what degree your company can shine in both operational excellence and innovation will determine how durable and great it will be.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:24:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Little Motivation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_little_motivation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When our organization started its Six Sigma deployment back in 2004, we designed a small round pin that was given to certified Change Agents, Yellow Belts, Green Belts, and Black Belts.  The pins are gold-backed and have the appropriate color (blue for Change Agents) around the outer rim, with the appropriate certification title, and our health system logo in the middle.  At first people thought they were cute and some people wore them while others didn't.
Now, a couple of years later, "the pin" has become highly valued.  Associates who are awarded certification must complete training and a project for all levels; and I am receiving many inquiries about whether people are eligible for a pin.  Those who receive pins tend to wear them - not only their highest certification, but all the others too!  
I'm not down-hearted about people focusing on the pin, because I know they have had to demonstrate their competence in order to get one.  I'm happy to tell them which classes to take and inform them of the required project.  Most are eager to complete the requirements.  The pins and certificate are awarded at operating unit leadership meetings for a very public recognition ceremony.
It's a small thing, but very meaningful.
Another small thing that means a lot is our badge pulls.  These are handy little devices that clip onto your collar or pocket, and have a retractable string that attaches to your ID badge.  You can pull the badge away from the holder in order to swipe into a card-reader to gain access to an office or parking lot, without having to unclip the badge holder from your clothing.  We ordered black pulls for our BBs and green pulls for our GBs.  The shipment came in a couple of weeks ago, and we handed out the first pulls yesterday as we concluded a two-day Define session.
Today I received a lot of requests from the GBs who had formerly taken the class - "Hey I saw those green badge pulls, how come we didn't get them and when can I get mine?!?!?"  The badge pulls generated a lot of interest from everyone.
Certification pins - about $25 each.  Colored badge pulls - about $1.20 each.  Motivation, excitement, enthusiasm, feeling of being part of a special group...
Priceless.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:45:48 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Agent Performance Management: How to Incent Without Raising a Cent]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/agent_performance_management_how_to_incent_without_raising_a_cent.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Not all that glitters, is gold, and so is true in a call center. Most performance management and incentive programs focus heavily on the financial or monetary benefits to help incentivize agent performance. But, in a black belt project, you focus on ways to drive down costs, so I ask you, can it be done?The answer is YES! Especially, in your offshore and outsourced operation centers. If you have every traveled to meet your teams overseas, you will find a wonderful group of self-motivated and driven individuals who want to exceed at running your account, to the contrary the popular belief system that agents are always looking to cut corners, 'game the system' or do whatever they can to get off of the phone. While the latter may hold the most "somewhat truth", the real opportunity lies in the environment that they work. Take a look around the center and ask yourself a few critical questions -- Do you see a lot of recognition on the walls, i.e. portraits of high performing agents? Do you hear about a lot of motivational events, like 'Agent Appreciation Week' or 'XXX Food Cookoff Competition' or any SWAG give away in which the agents can win logo prizes? What managers who have preconceived notions may scoff at (bad black belt if you are scoffing at any improvement effort without first analyzing the data -- but shush, I won't tell) Most performance lies within the agent; it starts with tenure and moves into morale as they become more seasoned. Don't worry if you have just received a six sigma project related to improving agent performance without raising salaries because softer things like I mentioned above, do make a difference. You will just need to set up interviews with agents to prove so. I suggest stratifying your data by the following three dimensions: a) tenure, b) current performance (high performer, low performer or average) and lastly c)agent name (for identification purposes). Your output should be agent satisfaction scores (C-Sat surveys given to customer based on their experience with an agent during a call or email) but if it AHT, that is fine, except I would break it down into the components of AHT (see previous post) since AHT by definition is an AVERAGE. Lastly, overlay all of this using the Matrix Plot graphing option in Minitab to view interactions between each input dimension and output. Then, interview those that fall into the following buckets - newbie, high performer vs. oldie, high performer; newbie, low performer vs. oldie, low performer and compare drivers. You should ask questions that really get them thinking and make sure you set up a "safe environment"; i.e. one that is off of the floor, possibly in a conference room, so they feel free to answer honestly. Reassure them that their answers are anonymous and for research purposes only and really try to relate on their level before launching into your questions. Like I said before...Not all that glitters, is gold and such is true with what will drive your human performance related six sigma projects.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Laura Gibbons]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:26:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Synergy of Projects]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_synergy_of_projects.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently received an e-mail from another Command that outlined a program of LSS projects regarding the Army Reserves Family Support Group. The Family Support Group is essential a booster organization that supports military families during deployments and other activities that make their loved one absent. They provide resources such as Red Cross Assistance, small household goods and the like. As part of our initial project sponsor workshop, we identified opportunities for improvement with the Family Support Group within the 335th Command. We assigned an initial project regarding the management of the database that houses contact information. We are looking to improve a couple of items: the cycle time to input data into the portal and reducing the number of discrepancies in the database that causes mail to be returned or prevent us from contacting a family member by phone. 
The adjacent Command outlined a similar project regarding contact information on the Family Readiness database. I found it quite interesting and proceeded to talk with our Family Programs Coordinator who was somewhat surprised. I think so  too given that we operate off of Power steering to give visibility to all projects. I then contacted the Coordinator of the database project who exclaimed this is the first time he heard of it also. We both agreed to begin steps to work in this jointly. 
The bottom line is that with such a huge organization sharing similar problems, yet attacking them disjointly dilutes the potential for effective and innovative solutions. As we journey through this, I am hopeful that we can establish a more robust Enterprise level project communication system to facilitate the synergy needed to build the critical mass we are seeking to develop. 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Capt. Harris]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:51:26 -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: “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: Black Belt Humor]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/black_belt_humor.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I’m sure I’m not the only Black Belt who has conversations like these:
Someone coming to a meeting in the BB office/cubicle area for the first time: "Wow, I’ve never been to your office before.  It’s not very... 6S’d, is it? Ha ha!"
Team member, at a meeting:  "Boy, I thought you Black Belts were always supposed to be on time... 100% yield rate, ha ha!"
Team member, during brainstorming:  "Well, let’s hear from the Black Belt now, you’re supposed to have all the answers, aren’t you?  Ha ha!"
Significant other:  "Honey, where are the car keys?  Aren’t you supposed to have standard work or something for where you put them?  Ha ha!"
Now, none of these jokes would play very well at your local Comedy Castle, but people sure seem to think they’re the soul of wit when they come up with these gems.
It reminds me of when I was working in a bookstore for a while, while I was laid off from a previous organization.  The first time the books didn’t scan, I heard, "Well that means I get them for free, doesn’t it?" - Which was moderately humorous.  The second, third, and thousandth time, it didn’t seem so funny.
So, it looks like the only thing we BBs can do, other than become Supermen and Superwomen, is to come up with our own brand of Black Belt Humor.  Gary Cox does a great job helping us see the lighter side of our improvement efforts.  Now, all we need is our own Rodney Dangerfield to give the rest of us some good lines!  Any volunteers???]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 06:53:55 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Pieces of the Puzzle]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/pieces_of_the_puzzle.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our organization's Black Belts recently participated in a two-day retreat in which we did some team-building and strategy work for the upcoming fiscal year.  We did a leadership profile that diagnoses each person's preferred approach.  The four main styles are generalized as Driver, Conscientious, Steady, and Interactive.  I'm sure that the profile is similar to many others out there!
The interesting thing is that, among our 16 Black Belts, the preferences came out as follows:  4 Drivers, 5 Conscientious, 6 Interactive, 1 Steady.  We had fun dividing into our main groups (we included our one S with our 5 C's for this purpose).  Each group came up with a theme:  The D's chose "Get 'er Done," the I's (a fun-loving group to be sure) came up with "I Candy," and the combined C/S group selected "A person with a problem and no data is just another person with an opinion."  Our education coordinator is a D, our "data guru" is a C, and our Master Black Belt is an I.
We then re-divided into our site-based teams.  We had a few "aha" moments in this part of the exercise.  We didn't use leadership preferences, or any kind of a personality profile, when selecting our Black Belt candidates.  Yet, there was a very healthy diversity among our site teams.  Almost all had a blend of personality preferences, as well as a pretty even split between male/female, healthcare/process engineer, younger/older (or you may prefer "seasoned), inexperienced/experienced.  We also thought about our different site organizational cultures in terms of trying to bring about change.
It's easy to view personality tests as having the same entertainment value as horoscopes - but in our case, the process led to some solid team building and a helpful introspection on how we approach our Black Belt roles.  We found a new appreciation in each other's strengths and contributions to the team, and were reminded that individually, we're pieces of the puzzle and we need to work together to get the whole picture!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 19:27:13 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Belt Mania]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/belt_mania.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've been having some conversations about belts with my colleagues.  Officially, we have "Lean Green Belts" (learn Lean Six Sigma basics, facilitate Lean Kaizen events) and "Six Sigma Black Belts" (know both Lean &amp; Six Sigma, facilitate Lean &amp; Six Sigma projects, coach &amp; mentor Green Belts).
We had "Yellow Belts" for a while - Six Sigma team members who received basic training to make them more effective in their team roles.  We haven't been using this designation for our Lean team members; they don't receive any classroom instruction - only "on the gemba" training!
We're throwing around some ideas about whether we should change our approach.  The discussion so far:
Adding color belts:  Boy, it seems like everyone wants a belt so they will have a special designation of their own.  We could add White Belt designation for team participants and then give them a Yellow Belt when they've completed 5 - or 10 - or whatever.  We could add a Brown Belt designation for leaders who have passed a Lean Management course but don't actually lead projects.  Plenty of other colors left in the rainbow - we can even make up one of those neat laminated badges to wear behind our IDs to remind us of what color belt does what!
Changing criteria:  Oh man, do we REALLY have to do projects in order to get Green Belt certification?  Can't I be a Black Belt while staying in my job role?  There is a pretty constant push to revise our philosophy around these points.  So far, we have stayed firm - Yes, and No.
Doing away with belts:  What about guides, facilitators, change agents, change leaders, lean leaders, navigators, senseis, masters, etc.?  We would keep the criteria - just rename everyone.  My suggestion:  Green Belts become Padawan Learners and Black Belts become Jedi Knights.
Sticking to just Green Belt and Black Belt:  Well, it's tried and true.  Although we should always be open to new ideas, we've only been at this for three years, so maybe it's too soon to be changing everything around?  Let's stay the course for a while longer.
Our organization hasn't made any decisions to change - yet - but I thought I would write about this moment in our Lean Six Sigma journey to see if anyone else has had, or is having, similar discussions!
Would anyone like to share?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:15:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Contact Center Process Owner v. HQ Process Owner]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/contact_center_process_owner_v_hq_process_owner.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lean Six Sigma for Contact Centers
 
Once your improvements have implemented, the next step is to ensure sustainability of your results through tools like the Control plan &amp; FMEA. To ensure a smooth transition to your Contact Center Process Owner, the black/green belt should take a more hands-on approach than one may be used to in the transactional space.
  
(if you just read that opening sentence and asked yourself ‘what if my process owner isn’t in the contact center but the project affects the call center agents or support staff…?’) 
I challenge you to ask your champion the following question:   
1)    Why isn’t your process owner within the center? 
 

A call center is typically seen as a vendor by most organizations, or someone who provides a service that shows up on the P &amp; L as a line item within the Cost of Goods Sold. As a result, most operations leadership sits in ‘HQ or headquarters’, somewhere remote from the call center, thus rendering them one of the most removed from the process – 
Instead, utilize the in-center supervisors or managers that work for the vendor with a  HQ-hired account manager to oversee and sustain excellence within the operations center.You will not only build allegiance with those who will be helping you to execute your new process to customer specifications, but you will also be getting the true 'Voice of the Customer'. 
Lastly, don’t forget…you will be onsite and able to ‘Walk the Process’ yourself while conducting ‘Time and Motion’ studies on the agents, both of which are extremely useful tools for green and black belts to use if they have a call center related lean six sigma project requiring a lower time to resolve / handle time per contact.
(See the follow-on to this post for a helpful checklist of tasks that need to be included or prepared for the process owner handoff of your project).]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Laura Gibbons]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 14:34:48 -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: First-Call Resolution by Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/first_call_resolution_by_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Part two in a two part series on First-Call Resolution.  Read Part one, Inputs Driving Poor First-Call Resolution
Here's how to get started with a Six Sigma project:
Step 1. Define: Conduct an information-seeking drill-down with SME's (Subject Matter Experts) who are proven resources in the center. This can help determine the objective and scope of your project. Those SME's should also be a part of your project team.
Step 2. Measure: Track calls for a 30 day window in an excel spreadsheet, if you do not have a more sophisticated system. 
Step 3. Analyze: Flag repeat calls by analyzing those agent logs and any IVR system data (if you have an IVR or any other self-service tools, they should be included here). Identify whether an issue was resolved on the first call and if not, the actual reasons for repeated calls. Look at all customer interface points, because if the customer first contacted you via self-service systems, that counts as a call. 
Step 4a. Improve: Make certain you provide a measurement system of record to measure FCR from the first day forward. You need useful information to conduct further root cause analyses and provide data for your control charts. What's one ideal outcome? Could it be one where you continue to use the technology now in place - but making it work better for you or leverage new technology?
Step 4b. Improve: Perform an MSA once that measurement system is in place on IVR transactions and track where calls go once they are handled (*handled = call is answered) -- Look at calls and how the IVR is handling them. Many customers merely opt to zero out. That choice, however, isn't giving you interpretable data. Callers choose to zero out for numerous reasons, including their desire to speak with a live agent. 
One method of measurement can be a standard question agents can ask the customer at the close of a call: 
"Is there anything else I can do?" or "Is this what you wanted?"  These questions allow a crude estimate of FCR. The best way to measure FCR as part of Improve, is to add a question to your post call survey (if you have one), that asks:
"What your call successfully resolved the first time you called?
If No, follow-up that question with a series of options asking the caller why wasn't it resolved during that 1st call:
a) Agent lacked authorityb) Agent lacked knowledgec) etc…
Step 5: Build control charts around the “Done in One” concept (a.k.a. FCR) and publish, like we do, to an intranet that the agents have access to. Make sure you multi-dimensionalize it to allow agents to drill though center metrics to their individual agent FCR score.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Laura Gibbons]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Inputs Driving Poor First-Call Resolution]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/inputs_driving_poor_first_call_resolution.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Part one in a two part series on First-Call Resolution
For most contact centers, nearly one-third of inbound calls are repeat callers who weren’t satisfied the first time, and more often than not, the antiquated switches that contact centers leverage, just do not do that great of a job reporting on the true FCR (First-Call Resolution) in a given center...Why? Think of the iceberg analogy than Lean practitioners often use to explain COPQ and the hidden costs that fall below the water line. What rises above that line is easy to quantify...it is the lowest hanging fruit though highest on the berg, so to speak. 
Below the line, especially in contact centers are things like repeat callbacks, which is the opposite of FCR.  In the old call center mentality pre-six sigma for service days, FCR was a blue sky, nice to have metric, but nothing that managers held agents accountable for achieving. Instead, they opted for metrics focusing solely on time, like AHT (Average Handle time = talk time + post-call wrap up and any hold time during the call) or ASA (Average Speed of Answer = how fast you pick up the phone). 
What these metrics actually do is incite bad behavior, i.e. the kind of behavior that you do not want your agents to learn. For example, an agent can keep AHT low as well as ASA by picking up the call and immediately hanging up on the customer, something most of us have experienced should we had to have called a call center (something I would rather cut my left leg off or will spend hours online searching for rather than having to call). 
The agent AHT is an average of the daily AHT for a given time period, so naturally if they hang up, they will have a few second AHT. Mix that into the normal AHT of an agent, and suddenly, their monthly stats look the lowest of any other agent. See what I mean by ’incite bad behavior’? We like to call this ’Agent Badness’ though personally, I think it is more of a sign that the agent’s are not getting adequate coaching, but that is for another blog. 
And, AHT is influenced by multiple, equally likely root causes, so pinpointing improvements will only frustrate your black belts (I do not suggest contact center AHT projects for Green Belts ever, unless they are working on addressing a component of a larger Black Belt project). By shifting your objective to improving FCR, you will have a much easier time proving and sustaining your results, namely reduced Cost of Goods Sold and improved customer satisfaction ratings.  A focus on FCR will also reduce customer churn and improve agent morale.
First, it helps to understand the inputs that drive poor FCR performance:  

Agents frequently don’t have the authority to resolve an issue, even when the solution is obvious (EMPOWERMENT). This results in call escalations to a higher tier, with increased hold time and abandons. It also means the next callback will be an escalation call that ties up supervisor time. 
The agent may not have sufficient coaching time or ability to effectively deal with the customer call. (COACHING, NOT TRAINING, as the latter has been proven to not move the needle at all whereas the former, is very successful at driving higher FCR rates). 
Agents need to find information more easily to provide answers or actions for customers. When the information is difficult to access or unavailable, sometimes agents will guess at the answer or fail to provide an answer, both of which can lead to a callback. 
The back-end systems might not be up to the task. If the agent makes an address change, but it doesn’t propagate through the systems, then the customer will call back. 
You need clues into customer perceptions and behaviors and why the repeat calls are happening in the first place. This can help, for instance, when you discover customers are calling back trying to get a different result if their account is being suspended. 
Part two will list the steps to getting started with a Six Sigma project...]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Laura Gibbons]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:28:10 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Good vs. Great Black Belts]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/good_vs_great_black_belts.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In a prior post I reflected on desirable attributes for a Black Belt. After mentoring numerous Black Belts I can tell you what makes a good one, however I am wondering if one can statistically quantify a good vs. great belt.
Sure, there are tons of metrics that can be used to measure a belt:  hard project savings, time to complete project, project audit success rate, etc.; yet factors such as department, input in project selection, and project team members often make it hard for an “apples to apples” comparison of two Black Belts.
There is the perception from some of my fellow colleagues that great Black Belts are the ones who go on to management and leadership positions, however the basic law of supply and demand for human capital in the workforce makes me think that perception isn’t always true.
Another belief I’ve heard is that great Black Belts are those who can stay in their role for at least two years which gives the implication that good Black Belts are likely to be more easily discouraged and seek other opportunities sooner. Again, I find fault with this logic due to supply and demand. In fact, one could just as easily argue the opposite- great Black Belts are in their positions less than good ones because their talent is more recognized and they are easier to transition into another job. 
Aside from comparison of performance review ratings (which would only work under identical management), I’m at a loss and am beginning to think that it may be statistically impossible to quantify Black Belts in terms of good vs. great. I would love to hear from other mentors, especially those involved in Human Resources, as to how one can truly quantify this measurement. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Holly Hawkins]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:07:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: Bob Zimering on Textron Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/bob_zimering_on_textron_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Textron released an article last week entitled, Bob Zimering, a Textron Master Black Belt, Discusses Six Sigma at Textron and Responds to Some of the Critics.    
In the article Bob Zimering does exactly as the title suggests. He responds to the Fortune article where Qualpro said that Six Sigma companies trail in the S&amp;P… 




    
 

Textron’s stock price, incidentally, has outpaced the S&amp;P 500 by some 140 percent since introducing Six Sigma, but apparently Textron was not included on Qualpro’s list of “large” companies.  In any event, the company attributes this good stock performance to many factors, not any single one.
The article also gives a look at how Textron Six Sigma and Innovation work together, not apart.  




    
 

The consensus is that the original 1980’s Six Sigma from Motorola was narrowly focused on reducing defects in simple repetitive processes, and probably was not very good at innovation.  But since then, Six Sigma has evolved to include Design for Six Sigma (DFSS), which is about focusing improvements on customer needs and new ideas.  There are many opportunities to grow Six Sigma’s capability for revolutionary or disruptive idea generation by integrating methods from leaders such as  W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne (Blue Ocean Strategy) and Clayton Christensen (The Innovator’s Solution)... and from what I saw at the conference, Textron is at least on par with other industry leaders in developing this capability.
Bob Zimering on the Six Sigma Dilbert cartoons:  




    
 

“I think they’re great!” says Zimering.  In fact, I get a Dilbert calendar from my mom for my birthday every year.  Dilbert has had fun with just about every business function: operations, sales and marketing, IT, customers, suppliers, outsourcing, etc. I’m glad that Six Sigma is pervasive enough that it gets featured every few months; otherwise I would start to wonder if people had lost their passion about it.”
Overall a very informative, one that should get picked up by Fortune or the Wall Street Journal…but oh yeah, they don’t quite know how to publish good news about Six Sigma. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:06:25 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Measures of Success]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/measures_of_success.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As is well known by all, the Army exists as a non-profit organization. Our motives and measures of success are not around EPS or net profit. We measure mission accomplishment and effectiveness. Our motto is always, "make it happen" or as the cable guys says, "get ’er done."
However we do measure project success in terms of money:
Type 1- direct expenses or costs not paid or reduced
Type 2- cost avoidance
Type 3- increased capability
As a capital intensive business, I am contemplating a new measure of economic efficiency: capital intensity ratio. Because we do not show profit, the numerator-net profit is irrelevant. So I am struggling to calculate a new output measure of mission success.  I am currently evaluating the Value Measurement Methodology used by the Government in the evaluation of IT investments.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Capt. Harris]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:15:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: In a Vacuum]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/in_a_vacuum.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was facilitating a process-mapping session recently, and one of the team members came up to me during a break.  She said, "I think it's really interesting that you are leading us in the process mapping in a way that's much different than I've seen before."  I said, "What do you mean?"  She explained that she's seen 3 or 4 Black Belts lead process-mapping sessions at various times, and we all have a very different approach.  She wondered why we didn't all do it the same way.
I answered, "Well in fact, I've never seen another Black Belt do mapping.  I've only ever done it on my own, so I don't know how anyone else does it."
That made me stop and think.  I realized that I've never seen another Black Belt lead a team meeting for a Six Sigma project.  As soon as we all became Black Belts and attended training, we went our individual ways to lead our own projects.  When we get together to talk about our work, it's apparent that we all have different approaches, and we accept that while continuing to run our projects in our own ways.
Now, I'm all for individuality, in that we each bring our own experiences, skills, and strengths to our work.  And in truth, I don't have a lot of free time to sit in on other Black Belts' projects.  But this exchange made me wonder:  Could I learn to be a better Black Belt if I sat in on other project meetings once in a while?  Or is rugged individualism the way of the Black Belt?
I'd love to know your thoughts and experiences with this.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:47:18 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: 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: Virtually Stat Free Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/virtually_stat_free_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Praveen Gupta, President of Accelper Consulting, sent me a few copies of his new book entitled Virtually Stat Free Six Sigma. (Thanks for the reference to iSixSigma.com in the first chapter, Praveen!) Subtitled "Focusing on Intent for Quick Results," this book dives into the biggest problems facing most companies and what tools are most likely to help solve them. 
As Praveen and co-author Arvin Sri write, "Experience teaches us that most of the tools use din solving problems are simple and easy to learn. Even when statistics are needed, people often get mired in the technique instead of laearning how to benefit from it’s application."
While this blog post is not intended to be a "book review," I do appreciate the fact that:

There are a lot of statistical tools to learn in Six Sigma, and 
Without knowing Six Sigma inside and out (or having a MBB or BB coach), it’s hard to figure out which statistical tools might help solve a problem
This book may help guide you in the right direction.
Want a Free Book? *Offer*I have five extra copies of this book. For the first five people to email me the following information, I’ll mail you out a complimentary copy of the book: full name, company name, title, mailing address. I will update this page with the names, company names and titles of the first five people. We won’t do anything with your contact information except mail you the book.
Congratulations to the following recipients for reading the iSixSigma Blogosphere and being quick to make a request:

Nilakanta Srinivasan Janakiraman, Delivery Lead at Bank of America
Irving Bartlett, Head of Central Services at The Galleria
Conor Noonan, NPI Quality Project Engineer at Molex
Ramesh Pondhe, Operations Improvement Engineer at Susquehanna Health
Doug Gallant, Process Improvement Leader at Cavendish Farms
Your complimentary books will be mailed out next week. For those of you that didn’t win, keep reading as other books will be given away soon.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:00:05 -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: SBTI Response to WSJ Article]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/sbti_response_to_wsj_article.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was speaking with Joe Ficalora, EVP of Technology for Sigma Breakthrough Technologies, Inc., at the IQPC Miami Summit in January and we got to talking about all the bad press Six Sigma had been getting lately.  Joe told me that he and his colleague Joe Costello had co-written a letter to the author of the January 4th WSJ article about Six Sigma and Nardelli’s departure from Home Depot.  I asked Joe if he wouldn’t mind sharing the letter with me.  
After reading their response I felt their counter-points offered a good look at the other side of the story, the side of the story that the mainstream press just can’t seem to find time to write about.  
Thanks to both Joe’s at SBTI for setting Six Sigma straight.



Dear Ms. Richardson, 
We wish to respond to your article, dated January 4, 2007 in the Wall Street Journal, entitled “Departure of CEO Nardelli Brings Into Focus A Management Technique He Championed”.  As a long-term provider of Six Sigma business methodologies, and many complementary approaches to driving business excellence, SBTI is very interested in your recent article.  We would like to bring to light some additional information that we are certain would be interesting to readers and we feel compelled to respond to certain key points in your article which we feel are in error or perhaps ill-informed.  SBTI was not involved in Home Depot’s Six-Sigma deployment; however we feel that the performance of Home Depot’s stock price was not a direct reflection of Home Depot’s Six-Sigma deployment.
Perhaps the most important point you raise is in the title of your article.  There is an implied question whether it is CEO Nardelli that is parting ways with Home Depot or is it CEO Nardelli and Six-Sigma that are parting ways with Home Depot.  The fact of the matter is simply Bob Nardelli is leaving, but I doubt you will find Home Depot abandoning their Six-Sigma deployment.  They may modify or re-invigorate the approach, but odds are against them stopping.  Why? They would not abandon Six-Sigma because it works.  In all things in life there is a distribution or variation in the individual samples, a fundamental tenet of Six Sigma.  You have written about a single sample in only one individual, at one company and attempted to raise questions about an entire methodology and all the deployments of it.
By and large the executives who have left GE and AlliedSignal (now Honeywell) and other Six-Sigma companies who became top executives have uniformly started Six-Sigma and Lean programs at their new companies, and nearly all successfully deployed it.  Focusing on one CEO is a mistake of omission by ignoring the larger picture.  It may grab headlines, but it is most certainly myopic.  Consider the following short list of Executives who started Six-Sigma in their new positions:

Fred Poses – to American Standard
Jim McNerny – to 3M, to Boeing
David Weidman – to Celanese
Ed Breen – to Tyco
Matt Espe – to IKON Office Solutions
Jim Sierk – to Iomega
Wes Lucas – to Sun Chemical
These are all bright, motivated-to-succeed executives.  They would not begin an initiative that was unproven, untested, or questionable in their new leadership roles.
Also, Six-Sigma began at Motorola, true, but was expanded and improved with each new deployment at Texas Instruments, ABB, and Kodak among others.  Along the way from Motorola’s birth of Six-Sigma, Texas Instruments Defense Systems Electronics Group identified how to modify the approach and measures used to drive new product designs to higher levels of quality with appropriate advances in product launches.  It was deployed to all products, high volume and low volume, and all services and functions beyond just manufacturing in the deployment at AlliedSignal, beginning in 1994.  Larry Bossidy truly moved Six-Sigma from a Quality Initiative to a Business Initiative with documented and predictable bottom line results.  He also insisted that the two oft-competing methodologies of Lean and Six-Sigma begin cooperating as one improvement method.  It is true that Jack Welch and GE preached Six-Sigma from the mountain tops and sang praises in a very public way, but it was far from “languishing” before GE.
Let us consider Six Sigma and the return on investment with regards to a realistic time frame.  Classic Six Sigma return horizons are 18 to 24 months.  Mr Nardelli’s implementation of Six Sigma began in mid-2000.  With the consideration to Executive Training, Black Belt selection, project selection, training, launch, execution and results associated with the projects we should expect to begin hitting the Income Statement profit and loss numbers around late 2002.  At this time, (Q3, 2002) the share price of Home Depot was about $25.  Today the share price closed above $41, this is a 64% improvement.  In comparison (over the same timeline) Lowe’s share price went from $21 to $32, a 52% improvement.  Considering these numbers and this timing, Home Depot out-performed Lowe’s by 23%.

 Figure 1 – Lowe’s versus Home Depot Stock Prices
A savvy investor would have been able to time this predicted up-turn in performance. 
As stated in the Business Week, January 15th,, 2007 issue, Home Depot has enjoyed a 12% annual growth rate.   Under Bob Nardelli’s direction, Home Depot Supply, which services professional contractors, is up 159%.  Wall Street did not agree with Nardelli’s focus on Contractor Services and hence their opinions have been reflected in the share price. Overall, Nardelli’s numbers aren’t too bad, since January 28, 2001 to October 29, 2006 overall sales are up 209%, gross margins are up 6%
You are very correct in Qual-pro’s competing stance, biased viewpoint and lack of popularity in their approach.  Their approach is less practical from SBTI’s perspective.  Multi-Variable Testing as they espouse on their website is taught over an extended time, and in truth is just one aspect of the Six-Sigma roadmap which has been taught in a more compressed standard format to over thirty thousand individuals by SBTI.  Please have a look at an excerpt from our recent SBTI Quarterly newsletter for some contrasting perspectives on bottom-line results versus the S&amp;P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is a more appropriate numerical comparison due to averaging and sample sizes).  Figure 2 is one of those graphs, which does include 3M stock by the way.  

Figure 2 - SBTI Client Weighted Stock Average vs. DJIA
Other Six Sigma providers have done this type of successful comparison of their clients’ stock average too.  Any premier Lean and Six Sigma consulting firm assists in increasing the value and forever changing a company if the client’s leadership team is involved and leading the deployment.  While we cannot speak for Home Depot, a short glance through Steve Zinkgraf’s 2005 book, “Six Sigma, The First Ninety Days” should provide some insight as to what to expect and why it works with committed company leadership.
With regards to stock performance there are multiple issues to contend with, as pointed out in your article.   Especially if Six-Sigma is viewed as a merely a set of process tools and a Quality Improvement program, then why would the stock price be positively affected?  Total Quality Management (TQM) came and went without any major and sustained business impacts over a global basis.  Larry Bossidy points out in his recent book, “Execution” that there is three-way focus to obtain sustained business results on External Realities, Internal Activities, and Financial Goals.  While Home Depot was facing challenges from Lowes, their earnings per share increased 145% under Nardelli’s leadership.  If Six-Sigma and Lean have an impact in efficiency, Earnings-Per-Share would be one area that should be impacted, which it was in Home Depot’s case.  
Lastly, your article, while certainly about negative results with Mr. Nardelli at The Home Depot need not end there.  Remember that Home Depot is only a single sample of a Six-Sigma deployment and the variation in deployments is almost as large as the number of consulting companies providing Lean and Six-Sigma consulting and training.  
There are literally tens of thousands of Improvement Teams, Executive Champions and Sponsors, Lean Leaders, Master Black Belts, Black Belts and Green Belts who do yeoman’s work of solving chronic business problems every day with the tools of Lean and Six Sigma, sometimes called Lean-Sigma.  These people feel compelled to constantly and forever improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their companies, satisfying their customers, while keeping productivity advancing, and making their companies more competitive each year.  That is the real story, and one worth telling.  We urge you to seek out more than the individual departure of an ex-GE executive, but to look further into the quiet revolution that is literally spanning the globe in company business performance improvement.
We invite you to dig deeper into Lean and Six-Sigma and would be happy to arrange a tour of some of SBTI’s customers, their results and perspectives on the methodology from top to bottom, inside and out.  If you want to gain some additional perspectives, this would be a unique opportunity.
We look forward to your response, as we continue serving our varied and global customers’ needs this year in all things Lean and Six-Sigma.  
Best Regards,
Joe FicaloraEVP, TechnologySigma Breakthrough Technologies, Inc.
Joe  Costello, Executive Director, LeanSigma Breakthrough Technologies, Inc.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:09:57 -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: Hearing Voices]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/hearing_voices.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was raised to believe that in Six Sigma, the "Voice of the Customer" is the source of process specifications.  While training, we spent quite a bit of time learning Customer Needs Mapping, developing the Critical to Quality characteristics, and filling out the CTQ tree.  We defined a customer as the end-user, or beneficiary, of the process or service.
Then, it was revealed to us that sometimes the customer is not the only source of process specifications!  We were introduced to the "Voice of Quality" and the "Voice of the Business" as well.
Turns out there is also the "Voice of Federal Regulations" and "Voice of the Partner Organization" and "Voice of the Corporation That Owns You."
Now, it seems as if I'm hearing so many voices in my head, I'm not sure which way to turn sometimes!  (Especially when the customer is always right!)
Does anyone else have a variety of customer inputs?  Do find them to be conflicting or confusing at times?  Please share your experiences!
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:52:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Every Which Way]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/every_which_way.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently, I was part of a group Black Belts who were discussing the pressure on leaders to improve, not just in one direction, but in as many ways as possible, seemingly all at once.
Here's a possible scenario, from a hypothetical healthcare organization in the beginning stages of deploying Lean Six Sigma.  A Vice President is speaking to Director:

The organization's customer satisfaction scores are down, so we'll implement a series of projects to bring those scores up.  These aren't "big" enough to be Lean Six Sigma projects, and in any case service improvement is different than operational improvement so we'll use something everyone is comfortable with - PDCA.  We'll need people from your department to work on these teams.
Oh and by the way, we're implementing a new computer system to replace paper charting, and this new electronic medical record will be rolled out over the next year or so.  We'll be using the IT Project Management Structure for this.  We'll need people from your department to work on these teams.
And there's a series of clinical quality projects coming up, thanks to the new "pay for performance" reimbursement plan from our third-party payors (insurance companies), so we'll be kicking off a few projects using CQI.  We'll need people from your department to work on these teams.
While we're at it, the facilities team is working on a plan for renovating a major part of the building, and we certainly want your input, so we'll need a few people from your department at these meetings.  We don't have a structure or methodology, we just want people to come and share ideas and the planning team will make the decisions.
By the way, how come you don't have more active Lean Six Sigma projects in your area of responsibility???
No wonder we Black Belts sometimes hear the cry, "Stop the Madness!"
In an ideal deployment, all strategic planning and project selection would flow from prioritized goals, with agreed-upon targets and metrics.  What I find, in talking with other Black Belts, is that each part of our organizational culture has its own favorite method of selecting projects and choosing project methodology, because that's what has worked best for that area in the past.  Granted, anyone working in process / operational improvement should be conversant with multiple methodologies - but it was a revelation to me that we may have silos of "improvement methodologies" even as we're trying to break down the barriers between functional areas!
If you have experience in moving your organization toward a common methodology and language, please share your experiences!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:49:32 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: Man v. Machine]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/man_v_machine.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We must be data driven!  We must manage by fact!  What happens when we don’t have any data? What happens when we can’t tweak a bit of machinery to improve our primary metric? What happens when one of our critical Xs is a behavioural problem?  Or, one of our action items in the Improve stage is something a person has to do, who for the last 10 years has been working that process in a different way, their way?
This is when behavioural science can help RDMAICT and some techniques are summarised as follows: 
Recognise Stage: For greatest behaviour change pick the projects where people are feeling the pain NOW and a defect causes almost immediate problems not problems that MAY be felt in two years time. 

Lesson 1 in behavioural science (At Bechtel they call it Performance Based Leadership) was peoples’ behaviour changes the quickest when consequences are immediate and certain. When consequences are in the future and are uncertain the motivation to change is negligible.  
Measure Stage: When going through tools like the fishbone, be conscious that where there are behavioural Xs they may be a lack of one or more of the following;

Direction: Have people been told clearly what to do, and the strategic reason behind why they have to do the task a certain way.
Competence: Simply do they have the skills to do what they have been told.
Opportunity: Have they the time and tools (amongst other things) to do the job
Motivation: Have the factors that motivate that individual and his team to do the job right first time been considered. This analysis is subjective. The table below shows what happens when you have full DCOM and when you have a stage missing.

Figure 1: DCOM Model (Bechtel)
Improve Stage: Actions not being completed in your implementation Plan? Chances are that particular task has not got a consequence attached to it. 
Again, these consequences must be immediate and certain. They can be positive (preferable) or negative. An effective consequence is booking team members in to ‘present out’ their part of the project to the executive on a specific date. If that doesn’t get the action done the person is either near retirement, a masochist who loves being shown up and reprimanded in public or plain mad. 

Lesson 2 in behavioral science was telling people to do something is often not enough; a consequence has to be in place to ensure the task is done.
Control Stage: Your team members have all spent time and effort in your workshops. When the project is complete and you’re sipping tea with the boss, the cash saving projected on the wall behind you, don’t forget them, don’t take all the credit. This will lead to “extinction”; basically they have made the effort and want some recognition but have had little or no reward. When the call comes for project 2 I lay a penny to a pound that they won’t be volunteering. Team members need plenty of Positive Reinforcement. They are our customers at the end of the day.
These are just some of the techniques you can use. The main thing is to use these tools not ad hoc, but everyday, until they become “business as usual”. 
What behavioral techniques do you use within the RDMAICT process?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:50:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Black Belt Image]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/black_belt_image.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently, I had an interesting conversation with the editor of our facility newsletter.  She was looking for short articles for the next edition, and I asked if she thought people would be interested in some tips for email organization.  Simple stuff, like sorting your inbox by sender so you can take care of your boss's communication first.
She thought it was a great idea, and I sent her a few tips.  A few minutes later, she sent me back a question.
"Looks good to me, although do you think it will be odd for a Black Belt to be talking about minor administrative issues like these?  We wouldn't want to undermine your position/image."
Well, I thought that it was very nice of her to care about my image, but, I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry at the question.
It did make me ask myself, what's the image of Black Belt that she was concerned about?  That we only use Lean and Six Sigma for big team-based problem-solving projects?  I think it's also perfectly appropriate to look for efficient ways to handle even minor administrative details!  
As it turned out, she ran the article crediting me (which was perfectly ok as far as I'm concerned).
Have any of you run into image issues of this nature?  It would be interesting if you would share your stories!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:14:37 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Repatriate My Black Belt Into Leadership?  No Can Do]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/repatriate_my_black_belt_into_leadership_no_can_do.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 39:  Our organization is flat and has little turnover.  There just aren’t any leadership positions available for Black Belts when they repatriate.  
Organizations with little movement might find themselves getting a little stale when it comes to repatriating black belts.  Is there anything you can say to clear the air?   Here’s what I say . . .
Good workforce planning is critical in assuring proper selection and repatriation of black belts. The long term benefit of having black belts repatriate into leadership positions is that they become a catalyst for organizational transformation.  
To address this issue, start out by looking at the data.   Find out how many leadership placements have taken place in the past couple of years and compare that to the number of black belts that need to repatriate.  If there is truly no opportunity for placement/promotion into a leadership position, this organization will need to select existing leaders to be black belts and then return them to their leadership position in a couple of years.  After the first wave of leaders are picked, it will start a rotation cycle that provides repatriation opportunities created by vacancies due to the next wave of leaders becoming black belts.  Any mismatch in skills can be addressed by allowing the Black Belt to work projects that broaden their skills in areas where they will repatriate.   This provides the integration of Black Belt skills into leadership as well as job rotation opportunities to keep folks from getting stale or bored with their jobs due to lack of opportunity for movement/promotion.
If the data shows that there have been ample leadership placement opportunities in the past couple of years, then the real issue is not about lack of repatriation opportunities.  It is about black belt selection.   Good workforce planning should drive the organization to select a black belt that possesses good leadership skills and has been tapped for future promotion into a leadership position (1-3 years).   As a designated current or future leader, they were going to land the leadership position anyway. All you’ve done is given them some additional Six Sigma skills before they got there.   Experience has proven that when the right black belt is selected, the organization usually has several opportunities ready and waiting when that person is ready to repatriate.  
So it’s not about trying to make your black belt a leader.  It’s about picking a leader to be your Black Belt.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:59:25 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Tellin' It To The CEO]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/tellin_it_to_the_ceo.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, our organization graduated its first class of Lean Green Belts that was taught on our own, without our consultant.  We’re using the term "Lean Green Belt" because we’re teaching them primarily Lean so they can facilitate Rapid Improvement Events, although we’re using the DMAIC structure as an organizing principle.  (Our BBs are called Six Sigma Black Belts, to reflect the additional statistical knowledge they need to run both Lean and Six Sigma projects.)
During the graduation ceremony, we had a wonderful "aha" moment.  Our CEO was just wrapping up his warm congratulatory speech, and he ended it by saying "... and let’s keep pushing our improvement efforts forward!"
As one, the entire Lean Green Belt class responded:  "PULL! NOT PUSH, PULL!"
Needless to say we all erupted in laughter.  This is a class that "gets it" and we’re very excited to see them go out into the workplace and share their learnings.
Our Lean Green Belt certification requirements include 9 days of coursework over 4 months, an exam, and facilitation or co-facilitation of two projects within 12 months of completing the classes.  Having graduated these 40 LGBs, we’re really looking forward to seeing what the "Fall Class of 2006" will be doing next!
(And, we’re already starting our prep work for our Winter 2007 LGB class which will begin next month!)]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:11:56 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: I Should Write a Book]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/i_should_write_a_book.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Many organizational leaders are inspired by management books, and quite a few have gone to the extremes of ordering the books for their leadership teams.  Some even start book clubs or go through each book chapter by chapter in their meetings.
I'm an avid reader and have gone through a lot of management books in my time.  Books on principles of leadership, leading without authority, team management, creativity, reward and recognition, communication, accountability, you name it, it's out there.
Which brings me to a bright idea that I've been kicking around for a while.  I should write a book.  I can write inspirational stories that highlight Lean Six Sigma as the way to go... oh wait, that's been done.  OK, I can write a technically awe-inspiring tome chock full of statistical methods and applications... oh wait, that's been done.  Well, then I can write about Lean Six Sigma in a way that's accessible to the general public... oh wait, that's been done.  Still, I think I could write a book.  What might be the recipe for success?
I'd have to start with a great title.  Now, many of the books that have caught the eye of leaders have numbers in them.  For example, the one minute leader.  Level three leadership.  The four obsessions of leaders.  The five obsessions of leaders.  Six thinking hats.  Seven habits.  Eight essential steps.  Nine strategies.  Ten principles.  Twelve pillars.  Twenty-two ways to develop leadership.  101 Management tips.
Another word in the title that catches the eye is the leader-oriented noun, as demonstrated in the titles above.  Strategy, precept, pillar, principle, step, action, theory, law, science, practice, experience, philosophy, trait.
Then, it's essential to have "leader" somewhere in the title; and preferably, a sub-title that explains what the book is really about.
And, the name of an inspirational leader or group is very popular.  Jesus, Sun Tzu, Lao Tzu, Colin Powell, the Marines, the Navy, Captain Kirk, Ghengis Kahn, Wooden, Churchill, Patton.
So, here's my proposal for a great book title.
"The 27 Lean Six Sigma Leadership Secrets of Abraham Lincoln:  Uniting your organization to a common purpose."
That sounds pretty great to me.  Now, all I have to do is... write the book!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:35:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: Happy New Year]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/happy_new_year.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't usually make too many New Year's resolutions, but here are a few that I'll be attempting this year.
1.  To be less judgmental of people, and more judgmental about processes.
2.  To look more closely at the "story behind the headlines" when confronted with a problem.
3.  To clarify when I'm giving advice as a Black Belt, and when I'm letting my personal opinion sneak in.
I think if I can work on those three things, I'll become more effective as a process-improver-facilitator.
How about you - did you make any work-related resolutions this year?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:24:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: 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: Cookbook for Processes]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/cookbook_for_processes.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our help desk decided this semester to start a project where we would create a cookbook of our processes and procedures. This cookbook would be in the form of a manual that would be in print and electronic formats and would serve as a basis for choosing Six Sigma projects and for training our staff and as a reference document.
First we categorized our help desk into seven major categories that we support: systems, operating systems, networking, security, IT services, help desk, and internal processes. Each of these categories contains from two to eight other items for a manual with 28 chapters.  Second we began collecting data from those who work closest with these processes. The data includes everything from the process in a flowchart to who are the process owners. This is still in the works. Now we’re also working on what format to put this work in. We’ve decided that our flowcharts will be put into Visio. Our cookbook will be written in LaTeX and put in PDF format for the web and printed as a paper copy too.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Lisa Moore]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:31:47 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Heads or Tails?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/heads_or_tails.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I'm looking at a process, it often seems like there's more than one way to approach a problem - without a clear-cut "right" or "best" solution.  One of the issues that seems to be a frequent "let's-flip-a-coin issue" is centralization vs decentralization, specifically related to decision-making.
In some projects, a particular process has been decentralized - the rationale is remaining close to the customer, using just-in-time deliveries, allowing for the uniqueness of a variety of environments (geographic, cultural, or what have you).  Local sites may come up with different solutions for the same problem.  When we go in to facilitate a project, often we hear the project team and/or leaders call for "standardization across sites," "accountability," and "reduction in over-processing waste" meaning centralization of authority for processes and changes.
In other projects, a particular project has been subject to a central authority - the rationale is to maintain standard work and accountability.  Local sites may not have the flexibility to address unique customer issues.  When we go in to facilitate a project, often we hear the project team and/or leaders call for "delivering on CTQs that vary with our customer base," "reducing hand-offs and unnecessary approvals" and "agility" meaning decentralization of decision-making.
It seems that both sides have good arguments.  I've tried to get teams to consider the "think globally, act locally" concept but have run into opposition from both sides.
Would anyone care to share his or her experiences on either side of this coin?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:39:28 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Acronyms and Anachronisms]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/acronyms_and_anachronisms.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Reading Gianna Clark's latest blog made me thing about all the "sayisms" that I've developed over the past three years of my Lean-Six Sigma journey.  I have added lots of acronyms, sayings, and jargon in my daily speech - and I keep forgetting that not everybody is familiar with these terms (yet) - including my husband during our dinner table conversations!  Have you had this same experience?
Here are some examples of what I find myself saying - in each case, someone has said - "Whoa - slow down - I don't know what you mean by that!"

Radio station WIIFM (thanks Gina, that's what kicked me off on this blog! "What's in it for me?")
CTQs (Critical to Quality [characteristics])
VOC (Voice of the Customer)
ARMI (Approvers, Resources, Members, Interested Parties)
Big Y (Process Outcome)
WWW (What-Who-When)
DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control)
FMEA (Failure Modes Effects Analysis)
DOE (Design of Experiments) 
SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)
DPMO (Defects per Million Opportunities)
SIPOC (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers)
VSM (Value Stream Map)
COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality)
GR&amp;R (Gage Reproducibility &amp; Repeatability)
QFD (Quality Function Deployment)
Surely there must be many more out there that you get caught on as well.  Care to share?
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:46:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Reward &amp; Recognition]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/reward_amp_recognition.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our organization is starting to have a very constructive discussion about rewards and recognition for Black Belts.  (Green Belts, hold on, you're next.)  We canvassed our current Black Belts and - as you might guess - the variation was wider than the mean!
Ideas started from certificates, pins, and belts... through public recognition at organization-wide events... through project bonuses... and ended up at preferential promotion after specified criteria were met and the person had been in the Black Belt role for a certain amount of time.
One individual felt that reporting to the hospital President was the most satisfying aspect of the job, while another said, essentially, "forget the trinkets, just give me project bonuses."
Related to this discussion is the appropriate reward/recognition structure for Green Belts, other team participants, Process Owners, and Project Sponsors.  We wonder whether there should be a series of certificates and pins, or should we use the belt structure (white, yellow, orange, etc.), or should we give gift certificates / tote bags / padfolios, and/or public recognition?
While we work to get to organizational consensus on these issues, I wonder whether any of you would like to share your thoughts on successful (or unsuccessful!) recognition programs for Lean Six Sigma project team members.  Do we need to reward differently than we recognize?  Or are these just two different aspects of the same issue?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:22:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Madness]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_madness.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently took a long train journey to Wales to attend a user group for a software package that defines Enterprise Architecture (Zachman et al). More details in a future IT blog. But what caught my eye was an article in The Times newspaper:

Tax staff told to clear their deskBeing told to clear your desk used to be synonymous with dismissal. But civil servants have been asked to remove photographs, food and mobile phones in an attempt to improve efficiency.
Under an edict sent to Revenue &amp; Customs staff in tax offices, desks have to be tidy, clean and free from clutter to promote “efficient business processing”. The so-called Lean programme, designed to improve productivity in government offices, has provoked a work-to-rule among 14,000 civil servants.  An internal memo from a senior manager in North Wales outlining the process evoked claims from the Public and Commercial Services Union that the organisation was trying to “dehumanise” working conditions.
Revenue &amp; Customs said that staff had been invited to work with managers, and that unions had been consulted.
Its not often you see Lean in the national press and this didn’t seem to be the right message. 
My immediate thoughts were around the benefits of implementing 5S to keep desks clear. Revenue &amp; Customs is a colossal government agency with a budget in the billions. Even a few percent in savings translates into considerable sums. So I expect the data showed a clean desk policy will have a realisable impact. I also wondered if 5S would extend into the virtual world of information stored on-line, documents on file servers, plans in Excel, messages stored in e-mails?
I suspected what I was reading was just the tip of the iceberg so I did a little more research.
PA Consulting was engaged to drive the Lean programme and they provide a good write-up of the programme. Equally the Public and Commercial Services Union provide a good counter-argument to this Lean madness. I must say I found this viewpoint rather alien to me. I have never worked in the public sector and was surprised with the resistance to change.
But overall it put into perspective the issues I have in getting stakeholder agreement, process owners on board and cross-functional teams working together. Central government is in a different league.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:19:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Organizational Maturity II, A Little Research]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/organizational_maturity_ii_a_little_research.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Okay, time to pick up where I left off last month. You may or may not remember my post about assessing organizational maturity in order to discern the appropriate scope and/or starting point for continuous improvement efforts so I’ll refresh your memory with a quote from the post:

“Our target end state for an organization is that of a mature populace which has taken the tenets of Lean / Six Sigma and woven them into the everyday fabric of the business. One which communicates problems in a common vernacular, uses data to develop solutions, and ultimately develops a relentless pursuit of perfection.”
Obviously that statement reflects the goal but what is the reality? Well, I did some research on how experts in various fields go about the process of gauging organizational maturity and this is what I discovered:
• The software development industry surpasses most every other industry I could find information on when it comes to tools employed to conduct such an assessment. In this industry, which I’ll admit is quite foreign to me, there appears to be widespread recognition of the need to gauge organizational maturity prior to the development of applications specific to the organization. I found more journal articles and scholarly research on the subject as it relates to software development than for any other industry by a wide margin. In fact, the Software Engineering Institute developed a “Capability Maturity Model” in the 1980’s which is still in use today, albeit revised. Do a search on CMM to find more.
• Project management was another field for which I found some information. On the surface it appears the practice of gauging organizational maturity as a part of project risk assessment is common. That said, I’ve been around project work for quite a while and though most projects I’ve seen have a risk assessment component, I don’t recall ever encountering an organizational maturity profile. Maybe it’s a part of the BoK that doesn’t get used much outside academe. 
• Another discovery I made was that the CMM (capability model) I mentioned before was the foundation for the organizational assessment process currently used as part of ISO9000. Once again I find myself outside my area of expertise so maybe some of you quality guru’s could help me out. I’ve seen some of the ISO assessment tools but I don’t recall one that relates specifically to organizational maturity.
I’ll leave it here for now but I’d really like to see some input on this one. My brief research indicates that there are a number of different approaches to how this can be done and I’d love to hear of your experience with such tools if you have it. In the meantime, I will do some more digging to see if I can come up with some links to specific assessment tools.
More later, Michael]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[W. Michael McBride]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:38:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma at 30 Rock]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_at_30_rock.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My mother-in-law (we call her TiVo) said she was watching 30 Rock last week…(just one of the many, many shows she records, hence the name TiVo) and told me about a scene where Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin) explains Six Sigma to his staff writers.  Well, I went a looking for it and thanks to YouTube here’s the clip:



I found the clip very funny, especially the line about the Sigma 6 GI Joe. So now we’re seeing Six Sigma references in pop culture entertainment!  As you might know NBC is owned by GE, whose former CEO, Jack Welch, made Six Sigma famous -- so the humorous riff on Six Sigma is quite fitting.
30 Rock Six Sigma Links
Tina takes on corporate America, Fortune, September 7, 2006.  Excerpt:

"(Tina) Fey, who writes, produces, and stars in the show, which will air this fall, recently spoke with FORTUNE’s Stephanie Mehta about the television business, working for a large company, and Six Sigma. That’s right, Six Sigma..."
TV and Film Guy’s comments on the Six Sigma bit via BlogCritics
Recap of the entire episode via TV Fodder
Wikipedia overview of the episode - Jack the Writer]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:57:45 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Deployment Music, Part 3]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/deployment_music_part_3.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my previous two posts, I talked about the fugue and the symphony as metaphors for Six Sigma deployment.
A fugue is a  musical form in which a single theme is repeated or imitated successively by different instruments until eventually the entire orchestra is involved. This strategy isn’t a bad one for Six Sigma deployment, especially in cases where human resources are tight but time is not. By contrast, symphonies start with some multiple themes deployed differently in different areas. The program doesn’t have to be the same everywhere, as long the themes and their relationships and well planned. The key for a symphonic deployment is that it requires excellent planning and coordination throughout.
Of all my previous blog posts, these alone garnered no comments whatsoever. But what is blogging for, if not to air thoughts that might be interesting to me and no one else? With that in mind, it’s time for the third (and possibly most esoteric) topic in this series: the tone poem as a model for deployment.
With respect to the amount of structure involved, tone poems are at the other end of the spectrum from fugues. In short, there are no rules. There might be one movement, there might be many. Tone poems can have one single theme, a few, or many. Some of these themes can exist in isolation and may be played only by one instrument group. Other themes interact, overlap, and play off one another. Some tone poems are completely original, while others quote freely from other sources in whole or in part. Some are harmonious and pleasing to the ear, while others are random and cacophonous.
The problem with this method of deployment is the same as the problem with tone poems: the outcome is different every time. Actually, that’s not a problem in the world of music at all; creating and driving that variety is the point of the form, and the fact that I might hate the outcome while you might love it is one of the joys of musical expression. But in the world of Six Sigma deployment, we’re faced with the reality that to some extent, our target audience has to love it.
This isn’t to say that any one of these three strategies is inherently good or bad. Rather that one is generally more appropriate than others based on circumstances. The problem is when the wrong choice is made, or worse, no choice is made at all and we default to some version of the tone poem.
Although it’s probably not intentional, most Six Sigma deployments share a lot of characteristics with tone poems. In my experience, it’s easily the most common of the three strategies discussed here. Part of this has to do with the inability of large organizations to formulate complicated plans and then keep the faith long enough to focus and execute those plans over years. Part of it has to do with our desire to emulate the deployments of others, quote from other sources, even though our organizations are different in every respect. And part of it certainly has to do with the fact that most deployments are designed by large groups rather than individuals.
Faced with these real-world difficulties, a lot of deployment champions choose the unstructured tone poem rather than something more structured like a fugue or symphony. And for a composer that is both brilliant and empowered, the tone poem can be a beautiful this. But say what you want about the limited creativity allowed in a fugue, if you follow the basic rules you end up with something that is a recognizable fugue even if you make some major blunders along the way. Ditto for a symphony. In contrast, tone poems and deployments based on the form can end up being a jumble of noise if the composer isn’t careful or talented. To put it another way, the structure and framework actually adds robustness to the deployment, just like it does to the musical form. Unless we’re brilliant, we ought to go for the structure.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Bubble, Bubble, Toil &amp; Trouble]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/bubble_bubble_toil_amp_trouble.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 35:  Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble, Send me a Black Belt on the Double.  I have a problem and he needs to fix it!
At first, this statement may not sound like a "nayism" but beware.  Something is brewing in this organization and it is definitely trouble.  Why?  Here’s what I say . . .
This process owner is very clear about his ownership of the problem but does not seem to own the fix.   Too many times a Black Belt is perceived as the "magic" ingredient to make a problem go away.  There is no denying that a talented Black Belt and team can solve some really dreadful problems but the solutions are only as effective as their implementation and successful implementation requires ownership by the process owner.   Sometimes in their zeal, the Black Belt takes too much ownership of the problem and the solution.  This has the unintended consequence of releasing the process owner of theirs.  There is nothing scarier than trying to fix a process without a process owner (believe me - I’ve seen it).
The essential ingredient in any project solution and successful  implementation is the process owner.  Only if they own the problem and the solution will the true ’magic’ occur.    Happy Halloween! ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:55:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Journeys - Part 2]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_journeys_part_2.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(Continued from "Lean Journeys - Part 1")
There were two departments in the plant, and the press area served both with most of their raw material.  After about two weeks on the job, I found that my area was shutting down one assembly cell per day on average.  As you could imagine, my stress level was getting very high in a short time.  I started making daily schedules of what I wanted to run and when I wanted to run it.  I tried scheduling by piece count and by run time, but nothing I did worked.  I knew that I had considerable downtime, and my changeover times were considerable, but I was in a constant state of firefighting for weeks.
After consulting many references, I started to take a six-sigma approach to the dilemma.  What were the inputs?  Obviously changeover time was an input.  Running downtime was another....but what was the "Y" here?  I initially went with assembly stock-outs per day, since if I could keep the plant running, I could buy time to make the press area more efficient.
First, I had to figure out what my average customer demand was (takt time), and weather the demand was leveled.  Leveling of demand is very important, since this makes the production signals of a pull system stable and predictable.  As it turned out, my highest demand product was shipped as an assembly in one week quantities to Europe by boat with a two-week lead time....not good, but I considered it system noise since there was no way to immediately control that factor.  Luckily, the weekly demand for the product was stable.
As it turned out, taking a hard look at the operations, I found both good news and bad news.
The good news:
I had more capacity than I thought…on average I could run more pieces than my demand required.
The bad news: 1) My changeover times were astronomical.2) My unplanned downtime was also too high.
What was happening was that the min-max levels for the pull systems were so low, that the average press was almost spending more time changing over than actually running parts!  This was causing sheer chaos in the operation.
The improvement plan consisted of:
1) Re-setting min-max levels to reflect operations characteristics (aka “Take the initial hit”).2) Improve changeover times/reduce unplanned downtime using conventional problem solving.3) Lower min-max levels to the improved operations characteristics.4) Repeat the problem-solving process.
My next blog will discuss the before and after results of the activity, and will also discuss some of the conventional stumbling blocks for “going lean”. 
Please take a look at the following as they are really excellent references:
Kaizen for Quick Changeover: Going Beyond Smed by Kenichi Sekine, Keisuke Arai, and Bruce Talbot
Factory Physics Second Edition by Wallace Hopp and Mark Spearman]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:58:18 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Organizational Maturity]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/organizational_maturity.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Gauging organizational maturity is one of the most critical tasks undertaken prior to the implementation of Lean / Six Sigma. Not only is it important relative to determining where to start, it’s also an indicator of how much of a cultural shift will be required to make sure the methodology sticks.
The U.S. military seems to understand the need to match the mission with the appropriate resources, be it people, equipment, support, etc. Not that they always get exactly what they’d like to have to accomplish a mission, but at least it is in their DNA to lay out a plan for said resources and then go about modifying the plan to determine what their probability of success will be. Special Forces are required for some missions and regular infantry for others. If they don’t see that they can accomplish the mission with the resources available, they will modify the plan until they develop a reasonable probability of success. Do their plans always come to fruition as expected? Of course not. But they don’t quit assessing capabilities and planning missions because one such mission fails. And thank goodness for that.
Keeping a finger on the pulse of the organization to understand its readiness, capabilities, morale, etc., is vital to military strategists. Likewise, it should also be important to corporate strategists planning a Lean / Six Sigma effort. Just as the military would be unwise to use tanks &amp; infantry when they really need an aerial attack, so too is the corporate sponsor unwise if he/she tries to shoehorn an advanced methodology on an incapable and unprepared employee base. 
Our target end state for an organization is that of a mature populace which has taken the tenets of Lean / Six Sigma and woven them into the everyday fabric of the business. One which communicates problems in a common vernacular, uses data to develop solutions, and develops a relentless pursuit of perfection. That said, most companies, even those we as practitioners worship as companies that “get it”, will admit they are a long way from such an end state ideal. Thus, even for companies several years down the road on their Lean / Six Sigma journey, it is important to understand exactly where you are before you can figure out how to get where you want to be.
If knowing where to start is the first key to successful implementation then understanding organizational maturity has to be the single most important factor in finding the appropriate starting point. But how does one go about gauging organizational maturity? Tune in to my next post to find out…
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[W. Michael McBride]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:02:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Is Lean Thinking Another Name for Prudence?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/is_lean_thinking_another_name_for_prudence.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently I had a call from a well known training company in England who were planning a Six Sigma Lean Government workshop in February of 2007.   He did not ask about successes, or best practices, he wanted to know the major difficulties with our Lean initiative in Maine.  Thinking about it, I reached the conclusion that anxiety/resistance that stemmed from organizational change was a potential major barrier to successful implementation of a lean transformation if not the most significant concern.  Resistence causes anxiety from both labor and management.  Change is difficult, with union/management pressures, budget constraints and significant accountability expectations many government employees are stressed to the max. Some deal well with this through exercise, appropriate time managment and other personal wellness strategies. However, this potential state of mind is not a good situation if management is in denial about this reality.   Ultimately the lean government strategy will fail if this important detail is not part of the overall strategy.  Measurement of work to reduce waste combined with innovative use of technology is only part of the overall picture.  The people part of lean continues to be a critical aspect which can be fogotten in the hype of scientific management, continious improvement, value stream mapping and other process analysis tools.  Government exists to serve the people through services and infrastructure coordination and that includes the employees who provide the service.
A recent article in the Public Administration Review * speaks to this dilema. The article "In Search of Prudence: The Hidden Problem of Managerial Reform"  by John Kane and Haig Patapan of Griffith University in Austrailia,  touches on the accountability and related prudence reform that began in the Reagan years, continued through the Clinton Administration. These authors call this the New Public Management and basically contrast Aristotle’s phronesis (practical wisdom) with Weber’s analysis of government bureaucracy as being best managed as a rational-legal structure with measurable standards that can be objectively evaluated.  Lean thinking adds a new dimension to Webers view and includes customer service and the personal transformation that occurs when worker get more work done with the same or less effort.  Lean thinking, I would propose, is a metamorphosis of this movement. Lean Thinking has clearer goals and better implementation strategies, but it appears management may be in danger of making some of the same mistakes that are outlined in this article.  The article concludes: 

"An administration that endorses prudence requires the reconstruction of an ethos in which the public sector is honored as a distinctive realm that is dedicated to the very best public service and in which public servants are honored for their role in providing such service." (Kane, Patapan PAR 2006)*
In the Maine Department of Labor a lean initiative has been ongoing for over two years. More on this is available in one of my previous blogs. One of the great sayings from my home state that I am proud to introduce here is this "As Maine goes, so goes the Nation." At the MDOL employees are honored each year with a employee recognition event.  This event counters the potential sinking emotional ship that can occur with any organizational development effort. This years event the planners brought in a wonderful combination of motivational speaker, comedian and juggler, Randy Judkins.  The attendees laughed so hard and enjoyed the unique presentation so much, that for a moment at least, nirvana had arrived. I understand that it is not always possible to arrange for this kind of healthy comic release, but the point of this article is that without some strategy for recognizing that organizational change can take its toll on employees ultimately the initiative may fail. Finding a balance between individual creative effort and measured production in conjunction with a strategy for recognizing the human need for recognition and support is the key to successful lean transformation in government. 
* Public Administration Review (PAR) Volume 66, Number 5, September/October 2006, American Society for Public Administration, ISSN 0033-3352, Blackwell Publishing 2006  http://www.aspanet.org/scriptcontent/index_PAR.cfm]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:26:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Teaching Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/teaching_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My organization is embarking on a new frontier:  teaching our own version of DMAIC to new Green Belts and Black Belts.  For our first three waves, we used the material provided by our consultant. Now we're ready (we think) to customize it with our own organization's goals and culture.
The original training focused on the DMAIC process and included 17 days over six months - the same training for both Green Belts and Black Belts.  Each Black Belt was assigned a training project with 1 - 3 Green Belts on the team.  In this model, the BB was responsible as team leader and project facilitator, with GBs assisting.
We have made two major changes for this next wave of training.  We now wish to include more elements of Lean throughout the training, and we are preparing Green Belts to be team leaders with a Black Belt mentor/coach helping several Green Belts on their various teams.
In order to do this, we've split the classes so that Green Belts get the essentials of the project structure and emphasis on what they need to know to lead an effective project team.  This training will take 9 days total, with both GBs and BBs in attendance.  We've included tools for scoping the project and preparing the charter; Customer and Process CTQs; Value Stream Mapping; data collection; descriptive statistics and lean metrics such as Process Cycle Efficiency; classic Lean tools such as 5S, Takt time, and pull; planning for Rapid Improvement Events; use of Failure Mode Effects Analysis; facilitating the Control phase; and measurements needed for the sustaining the improvement.
In addition, we have planned some additional days of "Black Belt technical training" to include more of the technical and statistical knowledge that the BBs will need to effectively coach the Green Belts - MSA, sample size calculations, process capability, statistical analysis, design of experiments, etc.
This feels risky to me, because I'm concerned about (a) taking too much out of the Green Belt/Black Belt combined courses, so that the material becomes watered down; and (b) leaving too much in that doesn't pertain to the type of projects the Green Belts will be leading, so the educational material isn't value-added.
If any of you have made this transition, to teaching your own versions of the DMAIC/Lean material, I'd welcome your insights and suggestions.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:33:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Who’s doing who the favour?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whos_doing_who_the_favour.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When you help your neighbour to paint his fence, is he doing you the favour? NO
When you lend your friend 50 dollars, is he doing you the favour? NO
When you help a colleague fix his process, is he doing you the favour? NO

 
Make sure your colleagues understand this. If they think they are doing you a favour, you’re starting off on the wrong foot straight away.
OK, I know we get paid to do this, but I don’t know about you, but I can work with numerous departments on numerous ‘problems’. That’s one of the good things about being a Black Belt.
A new colleague spoke to me the other day saying “if you really want, I have a problem in my department that you can fix”. 
This attitude is wrong. It might not be his fault. The last Black Belt probably went round with his begging bowl asking “please let me help you, ohhhh please….” 
How do we change this attitude?
1. Get a good project pipeline flowing.
The more projects you have, the easier it is to ditch the project team with the wrong attitude. Sounds harsh, but a team with poor motivation is slowing you down, wasting your time and wasting the company money. A BB with a large pipeline, I argue, transmits an air of confidence. The BB has the attitude; I’m here to help if you want my help.
2. ‘Create a Burning Platform’ Kotter J ‘Leading Change’ 
Make sure you communicate the problem statement especially in terms of cash to the right people. People will soon shift once they know (or more importantly the bosses know) the gravity of the situation.
3. Create short term goals / milestones and 4. Communicate your success.
Keep your Six Sigma projects short and sweet. Projects that drag on for six months need to be carved up into key milestones to keep motivation at a maximum
5. Celebrate Success;
with plenty of beer, champagne, donuts or whatever your Six Sigma team deem to be a celebration. Remember, celebration is subjective to the individual.
I would be very interested in how you have established a culture of ‘pull’ (Colleagues at work coming to you for help) in your Six Sigma deployment.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:17:59 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean Journeys – Part 1]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_journeys__part_1.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Deciding to go lean is very popular in today’s business climate.  Eliminating overproduction and reducing excessive inventory (along with waste) is a must.  If you’re a black-belt, you’re role may be central to the lean transformation (depending on the organization).   Although there are many benefits to leaning-out operations, especially in a batch processing operation, there are also many growing pains that go with it.  The important question to ask is weather or not your operation is ready for them.
Today I have been thinking about some of my past experiences with lean implementation.  I will always remember my first day on the job as an operations supervisor in a stamping shop.  Since I only worked in an MRP (scheduled) environment before that, I was impressed at the kanban areas and the visual min-max levels.  I remember being somewhat perplexed that day though.  The problem was that all of the kanban areas were empty!  I remember thinking that I could schedule my way out of the issue without any problems.  I was absolutely wrong, and the following months proved to be some of the most challenging yet rewarding in my career.  Check back in a couple of days as I continue with this story, but for now, what are some of your experiences in implementing "lean"?  Please feel free to share them!
Lean Journeys – Part 2]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: From Good to Great Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/from_good_to_great_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I attended the IQPC Lean Six Sigma West Summit in Las Vegas from September 27-29, along with fellow blogger Michael Marx and the rest of the CTQ Media team. On Wednesday I gave a presentation entitled "From Good to Great Six Sigma: 5 Imperatives for Making the Leap." Many delegates who attended the presentation asked for a reference copy of my presentation, as it wasn't included on the conference CD. It can be viewed by clicking the screen-shot below.

As with any presentation, most of the value lies not within the words and graphics that are on each slide but with the associated verbal presentation, examples and stories. I hope to be able to give this presentation to you someday in person.
The idea behind the presentation is simple: In the national bestseller Good to Great, author Jim Collins tackles the question, "how can good companies, mediocre companies, even bad companies achieve enduring greatness?" What are the universal distinguishing characteristics that cause a company to go from good to great?
As a parallel to the Good to Great research, iSixSigma Magazine began research in 2004 to understand what makes a great Six Sigma initiative. We continue to research new areas that differentiate great from good in every issue. We have analyzed data from thousands of respondents at companies of all sizes on topics as varied as leadership, financial performance, innovation, project selection and customer centricity.
I've been honored to be asked to attend a few company conferences and make this presentation. The great news is that this presentation continues to evolve, as does the research that we conduct daily, so it should continue to be fresh and interesting.
I hope to meet you at an upcoming IQPC conference. If you have availability, a couple of us will be at the IQPC 8th Annual Six Sigma Summit in Miami January 22 - 25, 2007. Use code ISIX and safe 10% when you book.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:58:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Diet or Lifestyle Change?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_diet_or_lifestyle_change.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nayism 32:  We’ve learned the tools, trained folks and made good progress with our projects but somehow Six Sigma hasn’t become the "way we work".  Exactly when, if ever, will the cultural transformation thing happen?
Sounds like this organization is having a tough time changing old habits.  Much like the latest weight loss fad, short-term success can be realized but sustainable results will require a lifestyle change.  So what is the difference between a Six Sigma diet and lifestyle change?  Here’s what I say . . .
At some point in our lives we’ve probably all been on a ’diet’.  Whether we jump on the latest fad or devise a well thought out plan, we’re looking for the same result - to look and feel better.   When we begin our diet, we are very focused and keep to a strict regimen of eating right and exercising.  It works and the pounds melt away.   But as time progresses, it becomes harder to lose a pound.  The easy weight loss is gone and it is going to take even more dedication to keep going.  At this point, some folks give up because it is just too hard.  Others find the stamina to continue until they reach their goal weight.  They look good and feel good and their strict regimen of eating right and exercising no longer seems necessary.  Eventually old habits return and it is not long before they are back where they started - sometimes even a few pounds more.  What went wrong?   There was no lifestyle change to sustain the results.  Weaving new behavior into an old mindset is not easy.  It requires an unconditional desire to change.   A passion so strong that it doesn’t give way to the ’old ways’ which at times seem more comfortable and requires a lot less effort.
By now, some of you have forgotten that we are talking about a diet and have made the connection to Six Sigma.  For some it’s just a fad.  Others find success and start to become complacent in their search for excellence.   Results are held up as being ’good enough’.  Identifying good projects is a little tougher since the ground fruit is gone.  The easy converts are on board and the tough naysayers are just too tough to overcome.  Keeping on the forward path becomes more difficult as the constant focus on continuous improvement begins to be overshadowed by cultural norms.  This is a turning point for many organizations.  Only those who have the vision, the passion and the will to make Six Sigma a lifestyle change will succeed.  As for the others, they are destined to become the next victim of the Six Sigma diet.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:07:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Historical Perspective of Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/historical_perspective_of_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This note from Jim Womack at the Lean Institute provides an excellent historical perspective of lean manufacturing. It is reprinted here with permission.
 
Stephen
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
I’ve been reflecting on today’s remarkable headlines about the latest retreat by the Ford Motor Company as part of its “Way Forward” campaign. While reflecting, I have found it useful to think about the history of lean thinking at Ford, going back nearly 100 years. I believe it offers many useful lessons for our current-day lean journey and Ford’s immediate choices.
The historical record is clear. Henry Ford was the world’s first systematic lean thinker. His mind naturally focused on the value creation process rather than assets or organizations. And he was the first to see in his mind’s eye the flow of value from start to finish, from concept to launch and from raw material to customer. In addition, Ford was history’s most ferocious enemy of waste. (Except, possibly, Taiichi Ohno at Toyota who claimed that he learned what to do from reading Henry Ford’s books.)
Ford relentlessly emphasized the need to analyze every step in every process to see if it created value before finding a way to do it better. Otherwise the step should be eliminated. (This was Ford’s greatest criticism of Fredrick Taylor and Scientific Management. Why, asked Ford, was Taylor obsessed with getting people to work harder and more efficiently to do things that actually didn’t need to be done if the work was organized in the right sequence and location?) Then, when the wasteful steps had been eliminated, it was time to put the rest in continuous flow.
By 1914 at his Highland Park plant Ford had located most of the manufacturing steps for his product – the Model T – in one building and had created very nearly continuous flow in many parts of the operation, using single-piece-flow fabrication cells for components in addition to the moving final assembly line. He had even devised a very primitive pull system by using “shortage chasers” on timed routes along the assembly line to check inventories at every assembly point and convey the information back to the fabrication areas. This speeded up upstream processes that had fallen behind and slowed down those that were getting ahead.
Equally remarkable, Ford had designed his Model T in only three months in one large room with a small group of engineers under his direct oversight. This surely was a high point in lean practice for decades to come.
Then it gradually fell apart. Ford’s span of management control at Highland Park had been remarkably broad because he could easily take a walk to see the condition of every process, in design, assembly, and fabrication. And he could train a cohort of managers to see what he was seeing and remove more waste. No abstract measures of performance were needed.
However, as the company grew Ford’s personal management method became impractical. But what to replace it with? Ford himself seems not to have had an answer except to link every step by conveyors – as he attempted to do at the massive Rouge complex completed in the late 1920s. By the 1930s the whole Ford Motor Company was in a sense one linked process. (Ohno, of course, realized that lengthy conveyors governed by a central schedule are a push not a pull system, but this was much later.) Did this mean that in the founder’s mind that the company needed only one manager -- Ford himself -- even as it became the world’s largest industrial enterprise?
In any case, the system came crashing down in the 1930s as Ford tried to produce multiple products with multiple options in wildly gyrating markets. Only the staggering cash reserves from retained profits during the Model T era kept the company going until Henry Ford II was able to take over in 1945.
But what management system should he impose on the chaos? Henry Ford II read Peter Drucker’s 1946 classic, The Concept of the Corporation, praising the General Motors management system and quickly remade Ford in the image of GM.
What a different system it was! Henry Ford had managed by going to the gemba to inspect the value creation process. General Motors executives managed by analyzing financial abstractions. For example, asset utilization (normalized for sales volume), days of inventory, cost of scrap, etc. in the factory. Available engineering hours utilized in product design. Managers were then rewarded for making numerical targets using methods developed by staff experts that managers rarely understood. A good way to make many of these numbers was to make products in large batches in order to achieve high asset utilization and low cost per individual step. The total value creation process from end to end -- which had been so clear to Henry Ford -- was gradually lost from view.
Soon Ford executives using the financial measures developed by finance czar J. Edward Lundy were even more rigorous in analyzing the performance of their area of control than GM executives. Robert McNamara and the Whiz Kids were the exemplars. And Ford did regain competitiveness as a GM clone, claiming a stable second place in the auto industry.
In addition, by the late 1940s Ford was one of three U.S. auto companies using the same management system in the same town with the same union. With high investment barriers to entry, a remarkable era of stability was put place, lasting nearly forty years until the transplant Japanese factories succeeded in the U.S. in the later 1980s.
When it suddenly became apparent at that point that the leading Japanese companies -- Toyota followed by Honda -- were using a different management system, it was very hard for Ford to respond.
In the late 1980s, as Dan Jones, Dan Roos, and I wrote The Machine That Changed the World, we were able to document that Ford had applied a number of lean techniques in its assembly operations and was making dramatic progress in manufacturing productivity. We took this to mean that at least one American company was applying lean principles and with good results.
What we couldn’t report, because we had no way to measure it, was the status of the management system. And this was largely unchanged. Ford managers were still manipulating abstractions because the gemba consciousness of the early Ford Motor Company had been lost. Even worse, in the product development and supplier management processes, no change had occurred at all.
But Ford could still be successful in its home market for another 20 years by developing large pickups and SUVs. These were essentially America-only vehicles, suited to wide roads and low energy prices. They could only be challenged by Toyota and its Japanese emulators if they were willing to design vehicles specifically for the U.S. market and to locate production in  North America.
In 1997 I got a call from Jac Nasser, who had just taken over Ford’s North American Automotive Operations on his way to becoming CEO of Ford. He matter-of-factly told me that Ford’s Explorer and F100 pickup series were the only Ford products that made serious money and that he calculated that he had four years to become as efficient and effective as Toyota. Otherwise, the large pickups and SUVs would be copied by foreign firms at lower cost with higher quality and Ford would be in terminal decline. “So,” he asked, “how can Ford become Toyota in four years?”
We sat down to talk over just what this would mean -- dramatically changing the supplier management system, dramatically changing the product development system, dramatically changing the production management system, dramatically changing what managers do -- and he quickly concluded that it was just too hard. So he changed the management metrics, purged the poorest managers according to the metrics, and experimented with selling cars on the web! I was not asked back and had no desire to go back.
Ford actually survived for five years beyond Nasser’s projected meltdown date – although Nasser didn’t as CEO -- to arrive at its current crisis. But my prescription for new Ford CEO Alan Mulally is the same: Fundamentally rethink the supplier management system. Fundamentally rethink the product development system. And fundamentally rethink the production system from order to raw materials and from raw materials to delivery, with special attention to the information management system. (Much can still be learned from Ford’s Mazda subsidiary, which became an able pupil of Toyota after a crisis in 1973.) Above all, fundamentally rethink what mangers do and how they do it in order to regain the gemba consciousness that originally took Ford to world dominance. In brief, Ford needs to remake itself once more, this time in the image of the company that copied Ford’s original system: Toyota.
In addition, finish rethinking the social contract as Ford becomes a normal company (not an oligopolist) in a normal town (where labor doesn’t come from one supplier) that must live in a global market. Finally, rethink brand strategy to get rid of hopeless makes that can never make money – Mercury, Jaguar, Lincoln too? -- while refocusing the remaining brands on what customers really want -- sophisticated, hassle-free transportation in every price range. (A hint: Rethink the vast gap between the company and the customer to provide hassle-free mobility on a continuing basis to user-partners rather than selling cars to strangers in one-time transactions.)
Who knows whether this is doable in the time still available but it is the lean way forward. It will be tragic if the originator of lean thinking is crushed in the end by failing to learn lean lessons from its most earnest pupil.
 
 
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:43:05 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Good Process, Bad Process]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/good_process_bad_process.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was in New York City on a busy summer weekend not too long ago. Me and a whole lot of other tourists. In fact, it was the busiest I have ever seen the city in terms of tourists.
Saturday night found me and my companions at one end of Times Square, fighting the crowds to enjoy one of my favorite treats: a smoothie. Sunday night was the same, except that we were at the other end of Times Square fighting the crowds to enjoy another one of my favorite treats: ice cream. You’d think the two experiences would have been similar, but in fact they couldn’t have been more different.
First, a little background. For those unlucky folks who have never had a smoothie, they’re a blended mix of roughly 5-6 fresh ingredients like yogurt, sherbet, fruit of various types, juice, ice, etc. Each ingredient type can be customized according to what the customer wants; one order might mix bananas, strawberries, vanilla yogurt, orange sherbet, and ice, while the next might have blueberries, raspberries, oranges, grape juice, plain yogurt, and ice. On top of that, various additives are available, supposedly for extra fiber, extra energy, extra protein, etc. The ingredients are all combined and then blended before being poured into a cup and presented to the customer.
On the surface, the particular ice cream process I experienced was very much the same. Customers select a base ice cream which is then combined 3-4 additives like fruit, chocolate, nuts, various syrups, whipped cream, etc. These ingredients are all mixed and then transferred to a cup or cone and presented to the customer.
In both cases I very much enjoyed the taste of what I got, and in both cases the total price was in the region of $5. But that’s where the similarities ended. My experience as a customer was sharply different.
When I ordered the smoothie, I entered the building and had to wait about 20s to reach a cashier. The cashier asked me my name, and then took my order, which took another 20s. The physical layout then guided me to a small waiting area where additional products and other information were displayed alongside large windows and other diversions. Meanwhile, my custom order was electronically transmitted to a second worker who put the ingredients in a blender cup. This was fast and easy because all the scoops were sized to deliver single portions of solids, while liquids were automatically dispensed in the correct proportion according to the information the cashier had entered. Approximately 120s later, another worker finished blending the smoothie, poured it into a cup, and called me to the counter by name to deliver it. The place was crowded, but the process was designed to handle it and get folks through quickly. They were serving a new customer every 30s or so with almost no lineups. Another entire cell remained empty and un-manned; presumably to accommodate periods of peak demand. Fantastic.
By contrast, ordering the ice cream was nightmare. We had to line up outside just to join the line up inside. No less than three workers were dedicated to managing the flow of people from the outside line to the inside line – and even then, we watched frustrated as several people simply skipped ahead of us to the inside line. Total time in the outside line was about 15min. As we got inside, it became apparent that the physical layout of the store was incredibly bad from flow standpoint. A single, large station took up so much space that the folks who had received their order had to wedge past those still waiting to get out. Menus on the wall were unreadable from a few feet away, necessitating long conversations once the first cashier was reached. That was difficult, because of very loud music and, bizarrely, singing by the staff that seemed to be mandated every couple of minutes. Worse, the cashiers didn’t know the menu at all – ours argued with us about an item that she didn’t believe was on the menu. (We checked, it was.) Total time in the inner lineup was approximately 30min. Once we actually placed our order, a bizarre dance of inefficiency began. The person making the order was apparently supposed to keep in her head the details of four custom orders. She failed at each, having to ask information to be repeated four times. Again, this was very difficult due to the music and singing, to the point where we left with incorrect products because we gave up. She had to run to several different places for the ingredients, causing more than one physical collision with others doing the same. Labels and scoops were unusable in some cases and absent in others. She apologized that at least one of the things we had ordered “tasted really bad.” When it came time to actually pay (why didn’t we pay the first cashier?), we faced a new person who had no idea what we had ordered. So, we had to explain it again…sixth time in the process…did I mention the loud music and singing? The whole experience took just under and hour. The place was crowded but they were only serving a new customer every 5-7 minute. And if those other customers were anything like me, they left not only vowing that they would never come back, but also determined to warn others to avoid the place at all costs as a public service. It was awful.
The smoothie process was, in my opinion, a thing of beauty. They had obviously borrowed heavily from a certain well-known coffee chain, more than one fast-food chain, and probably some others. And they had innovated where necessary. In short, they had done their homework and thought about it. The beautiful details were too numerous to mention…the consistent way they unwrapped the straws without touching anything but the wrapper…the physical flow of material…it all brought a tear to my eye.
The ice cream process made me cry for different reasons. And what bothered me the most about the experience was that so many potential improvements were obvious and easy. It wouldn’t take a process improvement expert to make things much better, it wouldn’t even take money, it would just take someone with some interest, initiative, and a three digit IQ. With a small budget and little bit of knowledge, I bet even the greenest process improvement effort could turn the customer experience around 180 degrees and cut the time down by 80% in a month. The work wouldn’t be hard. Indeed, if they walked a few blocks across Times Square they could learn everything they need to know for free from the smoothie folks.
My question is this: why don’t they do it? Why is the horrid process allowed to persist? The improvements are so easy, so obvious, and so within-reach. The best practices are so well-reported and well-known. Sure, it would take a bit of work and dedication to make the changes, but if they can hire three people to manage two lines, surely they can afford one to get rid of the need for  two lines in the first place. Why, oh why, does the bad process continue to exist?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What do YOU say to the ‘non-believers’?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_do_you_say_to_the_non_believers.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Much is said about how Six Sigma will radically change your company, how it will save millions of pounds / dollars, and how it will change your company’s culture. Little is said about on of the major problems most Six Sigma deployments even the mature ones face; the "non believers." 
They are a splinter group with pockets in every area of your company, from the executive down to lower management. 
Their tactics for undermining Six Sigma is often one of passive resistance; not turning up for workshops, not contributing in meetings and / or reneging on actions in your Implementation Plan. 
They make no open statements of dissent, just the odd snide comment about Karate (referring to the belts) or how they’ve seen similar process improvement concepts come and go; or even crazier still, how they have no time to improve their processes as they are all soooo busy. 
You may not even know they are undermining you; hell, they may not even know they are undermining you. 
They send their ‘least capable’ staff (the staff that they can afford to loose for a few days) on the yellow belt / green belt training courses. They give you ‘boil the ocean’ projects or withhold data that would make them look bad. 
The fact is, over the short to medium term they are going to erode your Six Sigma deployment, but long term they could destroy your deployment or even destroy the whole concept globally, which is a shame because IT WORKS.
I would be interested in what you say or have said to these people (the ‘non-believers’) and what you do in your company to ‘sell’ the Six Sigma methodology.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 07:39:17 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Productivity Paradox]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_productivity_paradox.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As our organization implements lean, we are running into fears that our employees won't be as productive after a lean project.  There's a theory that we'll be "paying people to wait around" for patients / customers to show up.
I'm pretty fascinated by this fear, since lean concepts of value are supposed to be be employed for the workers as well as for the customers.  While there may be people to want to be paid for waiting around, I've seen studies that indicate that most healthcare folks want to be valued for the good work they produce in an efficient and pleasant environment.
It's always been clear to me that as process productivity goes up, in a service environment, service productivity goes down - and vice versa.  Think of it this way - if you have someone behind a registration counter, who is already busy, and someone walks up - that someone will have to wait.  And we do this in healthcare all the time - because we're afraid that we won't be getting our money's worth out of an employee, we make sure they have more than enough to do.  An idle employee costs money, in this paradigm; a waiting customer doesn't.
The lean concept of takt time is a great help here - measuring how many "units" or "customers" need to be served in a given time, and staffing accordingly (assuming an efficient process!).  But as expense accountants know, we would rather have workers 100% busy and patients waiting, than workers 85% busy and no patients waiting.
I was struck by a similar concept in the recent book, "Fast Innovation" (George, Works, Watson-Hemphill, 2005).  Creative engineers were found to be less efficient when working at 100% productivity.  It seems that the engineers were most efficient when they were working at 85% productivity - because this allowed them to adapt to sudden demands for design changes during the testing phases, and they didn't have to prioritize among many projects (robbing Peter to pay Paul) in order to adjust to a critical need.
I wonder whether we should pay more attention to this aspect of process design, when moving through our projects?
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:10:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Let Them Eat Cake]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/let_them_eat_cake.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our organization has just come through a phase that I've heard called "The Wave III Bump" by other institutions - the projects are all successful, but they just take so darn long, isn't there any way we can speed things up?  Our organization responded by moving to Lean in a big way; we've done Rapid Improvement Events (kaizen events by any other name) for many months now, and never got to a "Wave IV" for DMAIC projects.
But the pendulum is swinging back - we are finding that "just lean" is not the complete answer for our healthcare system either.  The part where you take only 5 measurements of a process never sat easily for our DMAIC-trained Black Belts who were looking at 24/7 departments where the process changes every shift.  And the lack of a control phase bothered us too, so we added it on after our RIE Report-Out on the last day of the event.  Our control phase lasts at least one month, with weekly report-outs by the Process Owner.
Now we find ourselves working out an amalgam of the DMAIC structure and Lean improvement tools.  OK, there are a lot of books out there called "Lean Six Sigma" but they spend most of their time telling you how wonderful it is without telling you how to structure your project to incorporate both philosophies.  A common presentation is to give all the DMAIC info then add a chapter on Lean tools.  That's not what we're aiming for; it feels like building a torte - a layer of this, then a layer of that.
I've been recently appointed lead BB for our educational process - for Black Belts, Green Belts, and system leaders - assisted in a big way by a subgroup of our Black Belts who are interested in spreading the word.  It's been challenging and fun to actually try to piece these concepts together seamlessly.  We want cheesecake, not a many-layered torte!  So far, what we've come up with is DMALC - Define (Plan), Measure (VSM), Analyze (Waste Walk), Lean (Improve), Control (Follow-up).  We're trying to keep the structure and the speed - eating your cake and having it too, so to speak!
Has anyone else worked on a seamless version of Lean Six Sigma?  I'd love to hear about it.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:34:28 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Too Busy]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/too_busy.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I continue to be amazed at the creativity some people have.  I’ve even heard some staff boast that they were "The Kings and Queens of Workarounds" because they knew how to get things done through back channels, crisis management, and personal connections that were never listed in any procedure manual. They are too busy to follow the established procedure, which "may look good in some book but doesn’t work in real life!"
I believe that one reason for this is that people lose sight of the reason they are providing the care.  In handling patient issues on a daily basis, the issues become "routine" for the healthcare providers, and patients become "workload."  That’s why you may hear staff complaining that a certain patient pushes the call light too frequently, for example.  Most people will seek the "least effort method" - whatever causes them the least effort is their own most efficient process - and they don’t stop to think about the impact of their personal changes on the rest of the process flow.
I was involved in a Rapid Improvement Event recently where we queried the Human Resources folks about the customer of their nurse hiring process.  The voting tallied pretty evenly at 50% for nurse candidates; and 50% for nurse managers.  We had to dig a little deeper to get the "aha" moment of the true customer:  our patients, who need nurses to provide appropriate clinical care; and the faster we fill vacancies, the better staffed our hospital units are, and presumably the better care we can provide to our patients.
Why did this take 15 minutes of discussion?  Because the group was focused on the workload of hiring a nurse, and not the outcome.  The re-focusing exercise helped the group to break some log-jams during the RIE when we looked at a few sacred cows.
Part of our work, as J P Spencer wrote in his August 25 blog, is to be change agents as well as statisticians.  Helping our improvement teams to remember the difference between their calling and their workload is an essential part of that job.
 
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:23:40 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Are you a Statistician or a Change Agent? Can you be both?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/are_you_a_statistician_or_a_change_agent_can_you_be_both.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A Black Belt friend of mine was telling me about deployment in his company. I listened to his problems patiently and then said to him, “It looks like you have employed a ‘bunch’ of Black Belts who are brilliant at the statistics, but when it comes to facilitating a project team, who might for example have come off the night shift on the shop floor, they (the Black Belts) can’t get the team or the processes to change -- thus few improvements and consequently little cash savings”. He admitted I was right.
I was generalising here, but what I meant was,  process owners and team members, who might still work on site or are perhaps foreman or gang leaders promoted from the ‘shop floor’, often find it hard to relate to the type of Black Belt who is University trained and statistically minded. At school they would have been at opposite ends of the playground, one kicking a ball around the school yard and the other playing on his ‘Game Boy’ or even looking out of the window of the classroom doing extra maths or playing chess. This leads to a fundamental question: “Is Six Sigma really about Statistics or is it about process change?  And in addition, ”Is a ‘good’ Black Belt someone who knows ‘Gage R and R’ or someone who can meet a group of co-workers and using the tools, make improvements and thus savings?” 
Do we as Black Belts get caught up in the technical side and forget about whom we really are? I.E. change agents.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:45:58 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What is your destiny?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_is_your_destiny.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my last blog I asked readers to comment on the core reasons for project failure. Well having waded through the flood of 10 responses (thank you all) here is what you said. Projects were split 50:50 between manufacturing and transactional with improving satisfaction levels and reducing costs the main objectives. But what I was principally after were the reasons for project failure. These I have classified into three groups. 
The first two reasons were project issues (scope, time-frame, resources) and external events. But the main reason offered for project failure was buy-in from your management and colleagues. I was left thinking, “this is not enough”, I was looking for a root-cause. Why did they no have management buy-in? Could it be poor communications, lack of alignment to strategic objectives, insufficient benefits, manager moving job?
I was reminded of a story from one of the Star Trek films, can’t remember which one. When Captain Kirk was in star academy training there was a practical exercise all students had to do. The exercise was designed so you always failed no matter what strategy you applied. So when it was Captain Kirk’s turn he flew his spaceship hundreds of parsecs in the opposite direction and so completely avoided the exercise and certain failure. Could the same be applied? Could you predict project failure in the first place? Well possibly.
I researched the Internet only to produce no clear answer. It was my MBB who hit the spot with an article from the Harvard Business Review. A recent study of a few hundred change projects had identified the key dimensions that describe project success &amp; failure. The dimensions being:

D - Duration between formal project reviews (toll-gates?)
I - Integrity and skills of the project team
C1 - Commitment and support of senior management
C2 - Commitment and support of people affected in the process
E - Effort required beyond the normal day-to-day work
Score your project from 1 (Best) to 4 (Worst) in each dimension and use the formulae:
DICE Score = D + 2 * I + 2 * C1 + C2 + E
A score between 7 and 14 means you are likely to succeed, anything over 14 should ring the alarm bells. The original research came out of Boston Consulting Group. So if past experience can be used as a predictor for future performance it may be worth a look. I have started to score my project initiatives to see if it works. 
Still no nearer the true underlying root-causes for lack of commitment and support. Good luck with all your projects!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:08:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Part-time Help Wanted]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/part_time_help_wanted.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my opinion, one of the key questions to answer when planning a deployment is whether the Black Belt role should be full-time.
While this sounds like a reasonable question to some, many experienced Six Sigma folks find it strange to even ask, because in the majority of programs the Black Belt role is automatically assumed to be full-time. Candidates are identified from within the organization (or hired externally) and trained in the usual way, after which time their job title becomes some version of “Black Belt” and they leave their previous role. In a separate but related process, projects are identified and prioritized. Projects are then matched to Black Belts, who move through the organization as necessary to complete the projects they are assigned.
There are innumerable variations on this theme, but in general it’s a pretty common model for continuous improvement. I think there are two reasons for this. First, it works well, especially at the start of a deployment. If you pick the right projects, provide a serviceable tool set, and 100% focus the right people, good things happen. You get project results and you get them fast. The second reason is that most Six Sigma consultants push this model, which is of course because of the first reason.
I worry about this deployment strategy in the long run though, especially as a path to culture change. This is partly because when I think of culture change, I think of work that should be targeted to address the holistic, system level in an organization. Not any one specific thing, but rather a collection of many aspects that must all be addressed with reasonable simultaneity. In my own mind, I call this “common cause work”.
In contrast, I view deploying specifically trained individuals to work on individual projects as “special cause work”. Here we are thinking less about working on the system as a whole, but rather about a very specific set of activities associated with a specific improvement objective.
(Before I get jumped on for my use of “special cause” and “common cause” terminology in this context, let me freely admit that I am using them conceptually rather than literally. And that I am taking liberties. And that I do understand the formal and correct usage. And that yes, I have read “Out of the Crisis”.)
I don’t mean to suggest that one type of work is better or more necessary than the other, only that they are different in nature and serve different purposes. I have seen successful Six Sigma programs based on both strategies. The problem comes when we address common cause work with special cause responses, or vice versa. As any Black Belt should know, the only exacerbates the problem we are trying to solve.
What this means in practice is that if culture change is the goal of a Six Sigma deployment, deploying full-time Black Belts, which is a special cause response (or at least much more special cause than part-time Black Belts) may not be the right strategy. In fact, as anyone who has done any special cause/common cause simulations can tell you, deploying Black Belts in a special cause fashion may in fact make the common cause cultural issues worse. It’s true that projects will be completed quickly and successfully, but it wreaks havoc on the culture.
Part-time Black Belts, on the other hand, can be deployed against common cause cultural variation as well as specific projects. For example, suppose there is a project that needs to be done in a specific facility which does not have a resident Black Belt. The special cause option would be to bring a full-time Black Belt in; import one from the outside, or take someone from the facility and put them in a new role. This would get the project done. But another – maybe better – option would be to find a subject matter expert from the facility and ask for 50% of their time for training and project work. The downside is that it will likely take that person more time to complete each project. And there will be battles to fight about focus and time balance. But the upside is tremendous. That person will know more than any outsider about the process. They will know the people involved. They will have natural social connections. They are far more likely to spread the philosophy and methodology of Six Sigma than an outsider would be. And when the project is done, they will still be there to for the next iteration, and the one after that. In short, they will be embedded and able to work in a common cause fashion on the culture, as well as being able to work special cause on specific projects in a special cause fashion.
As I said, the downside to all this is that it takes longer to get projects done. And part-time Black Belts are typically not very mobile in the organization, and thus can’t be easily deployed against projects outside their area. There are plusses and minuses to every approach. But the part-time Black Belt strategy is always worthy of consideration, especially when cultural change is a stated goal of deployment, and even when full-time Black Belts are an option. While undoubtedly messier in the short term, it’s a shorter path to culture change in the medium-long term.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Startup Projects]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/startup_projects.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As the academic year begins our Six Sigma team has met, created a new team charter, and began accumulating a list of projects that we would like to try this year. Our team named "Gravy" (gravy, or Six Sigma, being the goal of the team) fits in our planning objective: "More Six Sigma projects to measure the quality of customer service." 
The team champion, myself, and master black belt will have three returning members and one new member. They bring areas of expertise with them ranging from quality assurance experience to a jack of all trades to an organizational guru. Our first project will be to measure the types, numbers and time-to-completion of our help desk tickets during our new student days (days on campus before classes begin) and our first week of classes. These are two times when our support numbers are extremely high and they are good gauges of our internal training of staff and our marketing efforts to inform students of changes and how to connect to the residential network at our University.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Lisa Moore]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2006 07:16:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Anti-Hawthorne Effect]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_anti_hawthorne_effect.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I recently participated in a great discussion with a group of Black Belts in my SSBB exam review class.  We were talking about the importance of "walking the process" to understand it.  Several BBs had the experience of managers trying to create a process map in a back room somewhere - these managers swore that their map represented reality, until they actually were forced to go out onto the "shop floor" (however that translates to a particular environment) and had their "aha" moment.
One of the things we discussed was the so-called "Hawthorne" effect, which is generally used these days to describe the way workers will do their best, or the expected, while being observed for time studies.  This abnormal performance may skew observational data when only a few workers are being observed over a short period of time.
However, one of the BBs pointed out that they had seen the reverse - workers slowing down or doing things inefficiently while they were being watched.  Why would that happen?
It turns out that it hinged on the workers' perceptions of why they were being watched.  If they felt that their own performance was being rated, they tended to do their best to appear worthy of a possible raise, promotion, or other reward.
If, however, they felt that the management was doing time studies to try to increase productivity, or justify fewer employees, the workers tended to slow down so they wouldn't be responsible for layoffs of themselves or others.  In these cases, the workers assumed that the ultimate goal of the Six Sigma project was being done to reduce the number of employees, so why should they jeopardize their own jobs?
I'd never run into the second scenario before, in my experience in healthcare.  I wondered whether other Belts had seen different scenarios while making time studies or observations for their projects, and how it affected their "Measure" phase.  I also wonder how to be sensitive to either effect when measuring for my next project.
Would any of you like to share related experiences from projects that you have been involved in?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:44:46 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Triple Threat]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/triple_threat.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In my last post, about a recent Rapid Improvement Event (RIE, sometimes called a kaizen event), I mentioned that there were three Black Belts involved.  I’d like to expand on that a little further and see what you may think of our arrangement.
When a Rapid Improvement Event is chartered, a lead Black Belt is assigned to meet with the Process Owner to scope the boundaries of the event and hold pre-event team meetings.  During the RIE week, the lead BB is the primary facilitator of the group.
A second Black Belt is assigned as co-facilitator, who helps with data collection and process-mapping.  During the RIE week, the second Black Belt facilitates any subgroups that break off for special issues; calls out for ancillary department support (such as telecom or maintenance); and acts as a process-checker during the event.
The third Black Belt acts as a resource primarily during the RIE week.  As we are creating standard work, developing forms, revising procedures, etc. there is usually a need to create drafts that can come before the team quickly, so decisions can be made on the second and third days.
Now, this is a lot of "Black Belt resource" to use in a single event week.  Do we really need three BBs to run a lean event?
First of all, we’re fortunate to have enough Black Belts in our health system to be able to help out across sites.  So we have the resources available to do this for the majority of our RIEs.
Second, we’d rather have the team members focus on using their ideas to identify waste and come up with solutions - not typing for hours on a computer.  By having a Black Belt do these tasks, team members are free to be subject matter experts or general knowledge resources.
Third, we’ve found that we need relatively large teams to solve issues in healthcare.  There aren’t typical "work cells" where a select group focuses on one routine task.  No patient-related function is done in isolation, and representation from each stakeholder group is needed so we can have "the right people in the room."  These larger groups benefit from having at least 2 co-facilitators during the event week.
Should everybody use this model?  No.  But for our situation, and in our culture, this seems to work well.  We do vary the number of BBs according to the project scope, size of the team, and situation.  And we hope that as our number of Green Belts grows, we can start utilizing them on RIE teams in place of the second and third Black Belts.  I thought it might be interesting to share our approach, and even more interesting to get your comments on it.  What do you think about having multiple Black Belts on a Rapid Improvement/Kaizen team?  Please let me know.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:20:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Can you Help the Unwilling?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/can_you_help_the_unwilling.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Can you help the unwilling?  My co-worker and I are completely paralyzed by a group of staff members in an implementation that refuse to adopt the principles of Lean because it takes away the "joy" of working and the group cohesion.  According to them, now that Lean has been implemented, they don't have time to talk anymore...they're always working.
The thing here is Lean has not taken away the group cohesion, it has just made them do something they have not done before - WORK!!!  I may be from a different school of thought, but when I come to work I work.  I am not there to socialize and catch up on the latest lunch room gossip.  Being that I work in health care, there is no dictating when the work comes in either.  So, as a health care worker, you have to assume that your day is going to be filled with work, and when and how hard you work is completely determined by the patient.  Patient's don't chose when they get ill, and that is why health care is a continuous operation.  That's the purpose of implementing Lean.  The patient doesn't care that you don't have time to talk to your co-worker about their vacation, the patient wants to know what is wrong with them so they can be treated and go home.  In mind, it is completely insensitive of this group of employees who feel that their sense of joy from the workplace has been eliminated from their job.  You are not paid to chat, you are paid to work.  What keeps the doors of our hospitals open is being able to have a patient turnover rate that is more than acceptable to the patient.
Never more has this concept been evident than when we recently closed the doors on one of our hospitals after being in business for over 50 years.  We couldn't meet the demands of the patient, and unfortunately for us time beat Lean to the punch.  With this in mind, the staff at the other hospital, the ones refusing to adopt Lean, should be extremely mindful of this and should be working diligently to make sure the same doesn't happen at their place of employment.  After all, the joy of coming to work is knowing that you have a job to come to.
The struggle for me is being able to successfully implement the Lean principles into this type of environment.  The staff have dug their heels in 100%, and aren't budging.  Now, most Lean experts would say this is the point where you must rely on management to enforce the changes.  However, the staff have a hold on management as well, and management can get no where with them.  So now what; do we clean house? Will that solve anything?  In the end, we're stuck, deflated, and out of ideas.
Let me know your thoughts and experiences on this scenario.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew M. Hillig]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:35:38 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma By Any Other Name...]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_by_any_other_name.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's a synopsis of a recent conversation I overheard:
"We do Six Sigma, but we don't call it that."
"Why not?"
"It would scare people off."
"Huh?"
"If we called it Six Sigma, that gets interpreted by people as this strange, large, project "thing" with lots of data and statistics and change and being monitored and a lot of other negative things.  So we don't call it Six Sigma."
"What do you call it?"
"Oh, whatever we want.  Streamlining project or waste reduction project or fix-it project.  It really doesn't matter; once we get the team involved, we follow the DMAIC methodology.  We just don't get hung up on titles or special jargon."
"Does it work?"
"Oh yes, it's very effective.  Just don't call up our company and ask whether we're doing Six Sigma!"
 
 
Question of the day:  Does Six Sigma by any other name smell as sweet?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:46:23 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Speaking Up]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/speaking_up.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Recently, I was asked to participate in an evaluation of presentation skills for one of our senior leaders.  The questionnaire included questions that I expected - "speaks concisely" - but also some that I didn't.  After I completed the survey, I started to think about my own presentation strengths and weaknesses.  Here are some of my thoughts.
"Proves key points."  This took me aback.  What does that mean, "prove?"  I shouldn't have to prove anything - when I'm teaching Lean or Six Sigma concepts, the audience should accept whatever I tell them, because obviously, I'm an expert!  And when I'm presenting projects, I'm the Black Belt so you should accept whatever I say.  But -- in thinking about this, I need to remember my own response to so-called experts.  I'm usually open-minded at the beginning of any presentation, but I do wait for key indicators that the speaker has enough knowledge and experience to back up their talk.  For example, I've attended presentations where the speaker was just reading the slides - including the typographical errors.  Now that's poor.  To strengthen my own presentations, I'll try to blend in experiences and stories that make the point (concisely!).
"Uses a pleasant speaking tone."  Do I tend to drone on and on?  Should any lecture-type presentation last longer than 10 - 15 minutes without some kind of a break?  To strengthen my own presentations, I'll try to stop frequently to ask for members of the audience to share experiences; and I'll be alert to signs of "listeners' fatigue" - restlessness, excessive Blackberrying, and side conversations.
"Talks without using spacers such as 'um.' or 'er.' "  Uh-oh.  How many times do I, like, not pay attention to, um, all those little, mmm, habits that are invisible to me, but, like, so annoying to my, umm, audience?  Time for a process check by a fellow Black Belt the next time I teach or present.  If I'm really brave, I'll tape myself.
"Uses appropriate hand gestures."  OK, now I'm in real trouble.  I don't talk without using my arms and hands.  Am I being expressive, or just silly?  Am I distracting from the content?  Guess I'll ask my fellow Black Belt to take notes on this for me, too.
The survey, although intended to benefit an associate, turned out to be my own "aha" moment for the week.  Anyone having tips for more effective presentations, be sure to share with the rest of us!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:34:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The Fundamental Questions]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_fundamental_questions.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As I was scanning news this week, a couple of articles caught my eye. The first was a piece by Damon Darling in the New York Times about Farecast, an airfare search engine that aims to predict how much the price of an airline ticket will rise or fall before the flight actually occurs. Says Hugh Crean, Farecast’s chief executive, "This is predictive technology — we won’t achieve clairvoyance. We repredict and resimulate against our database to get better and better at what we are doing."
The second article that got my attention concerned the use of InnoCentive, an online portal that aims to connect organizations having scientific problems with researchers who can solve them. In the piece, Ann M. Thayer of Chemical and Engineering News spoke with Dan Kittle, Vice-president of Research and Development for Dow Chemical’s AgroSciences Unit.
According to Thayer, Kittle admits that “the approach was a bit ad hoc at first.” Kittle himself says of the InnoCentive program that “we learned quickly that we needed to put some structure around it help drive it.” Kittle continues “You’ve got to be able to get a challenge down to something for which you rationally believe there are the expertise, understanding, and capability to directly approach.”
Does any of this sound familiar? It sure does to me. The problem that Farecast faces – the development of predictive models and the accuracy of predictions – is one that occurs to some extent in almost all Six Sigma projects. In programs I am involved with, we even tackle it the same way Farecast does: state a prediction, test that prediction against reality, evaluate the thinking that produced the prediction, and iterate until we have a useful model. It’s not a "Six Sigma" approach per se, but rather an application of the scientific method.
The InnoCentive piece highlights how useful it can be to inject a little bit of structure into the project selection process. And furthermore, that even a very good problem solving method probably won’t be magic. These too are conversations I have had repeatedly in the context of Six Sigma deployment. Even though the Innocentive folks really have nothing to do with Six Sigma, they face exactly the same problems we do.
What to make of this?  The comments from Dow and Farecast illustrate that folks outside the Six Sigma bubble face exactly the same issues that we do. The reason these article caught my eye is because it seems to me the longer I stay in the Six Sigma world, the less "Six Sigma work" I do. In fact, my activities tend to focus, rather generically, on the following:

1. People: Finding the right people and developing them2. Process: Developing effective processes and discipline to process3. Projects: Selecting the right projects and executing them efficiently
Literally everything I do (professionally!) falls squarely in one of these areas. What’s interesting to me about this (admittedly non-novel) observation is that on the surface none of it has anything to do with Six Sigma. Rather, Six Sigma just happens to be a framework in which to work. I honestly don’t believe there’s anything special about Six Sigma other than that. All the hoopla, all the jargon, all the acronyms, all the bizarre terminology – perhaps the real and only value of those things is that they force us to focus and get organized about our people, process and projects. In other words, Six Sigma forces us to answer the fundamental questions. And if we don’t do that, well, there are a million dead corporate initiatives out there that show what happen if we don’t. We spend a lot of money and create a lot of cynicism, only to end up back we started again.
My point is that the fundamental questions of business (examples: How do we decide what work to do? How do we develop our people? How do we innovate? How can we predict more accurately?) never really go away. And I don’t think you’ll find very good answers for any of them within a Six Sigma program. In fact, it’s been my experience that what separates a good Six Sigma program from a bad one is how effectively these questions have been answered before deployment begins. Which is probably true of any initiative within the organization.
So, Six Sigma provides a reason to focus on the important, foundational questions that the business faces. That’s not news. But perhaps that exuse to focus is actually the true value of Six Sigma - not the projects or roadmaps or certifications or belts anything else. Because the business is going to spend a tremendous amount of time, resources, and money on a typical Six Sigma deployment, there is strong impetus to have answers to those fundamental questions before the deployment begins. And maybe once we have some decent answers, what we deploy doesn’t matter very much at all, as long as we do it well.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Whorf is a Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whorf_is_a_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Likely to be overheard if you have a Klingon Black Belt…
1.  Behold, the Value Stream Map of Kalis!  The greatest Klingon Black Belt who ever lived!
2.  You doubt the worthiness of my statistical analysis?  I should kill you where you stand! 
3.  By questioning my data you have challenged the honor of my family.  Prepare to die!
4.  Our competitors are without Black Belts!  And therefore without honor!
5.  A TRUE Klingon Black Belt does not worry about Stakeholder Analysis – stakeholders do not survive who do not support the project.
6.  I have challenged the entire Finance team to a Bat’Leth contest.  They will not concern us again.
7.  Perhaps it IS a good day to die!  I say we accept the null hypothesis!
8.  You cannot really appreciate “Lean Thinking” until you’ve read it in the original Klingon.
9.  Klingon Black Belts do not need to sleep during the Improve Phase!
10.  Do not ask me questions in Report-Out unless you are prepared to die!
11.  Klingon Black Belts don’t prepare the ROI.  For that, you need a Ferengi from Finance.
12.  “Six Sigma” is for Romulans.  Klingon Black Belts achieve Seven Sigma or die!
Full disclosure:  This is my adaptation of something that's listed on the web in many places, usually in the guise of "Klingon Programmer" or "Klingon Software Developer," without attribution.  As a "Star Trek" fan, and a Six Sigma Black Belt, I thought we needed our own version!  Try imagining Michael Dorn (the actor who played the Klingon "Whorf" in the Star Trek TV and movie series) as the reader!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:23:09 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Charlton Heston was a Black Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/charlton_heston_was_a_black_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What was really written on those stone tablets that Charlton Heston held in "The Ten Commandments?"
The Ten Commandments For Six Sigma Black Belts in Healthcare
I. Thou Shalt Have No other Goal than to Serve the Welfare of the Patient, by Process Improvement using Data Analysis or Lean Tools as Thou Needest.
II. Thou Shalt Not Worship any Particular Form of Statistical Analysis Above All Others, nor Bow Down to any individual Quality Expert’s Trademarked Methodology.
III. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of Thy Computer in Vain, for Thy Computer is a Jealous Computer, Visiting the Iniquity of the Users upon the Third and Fourth Generation of Them that Hate it; but Shewing Mercy unto Them that Love it, and Follow its User Manuals, and Call IT Support when Needed.
IV. Remember the Days of Rest, and Keep them Holy:  Thou Shalt Not Think About Work on these Days, so as to Maintain Thy Sanity, and Promote Clear Thinking when Thou Dost Return to They Labors.
V. Honor Thy Master Black Belts and Senseis, and All Who Impart Knowledge and Understanding, that Their Days may be Long upon the Land and Because Thou Never Knowest When Thou Wilt Need a Letter of Reference.
VI. Thou Shalt Understand the Principles of Each Statistical Method and Test that Thou Doest, so that Thy Hypothesis Testing and Thy Graphical Analysis Shall Be Accurate and Have Acceptable Confidence and Power.
VII. Thou Shalt Keep Informed About New Methods through Continuing Education, Membership in Professional Organizations, and Reading of Thy Professional Journals in Any Spare Time that Thou Hast.
VIII. Thou Shalt Not Falsify the Data, nor Manipulate Data to Achieve Thine Own Ends; neither Shalt Thou Bear False Witness Against Thy Fellow Belts, but Thou Shalt Truthfully Reveal the Situation to Thy Master Black Belt or Sensei in the Midst of Any Problem Investigation that Ariseth.
IX. Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Fellow Black Belt’s Knowledge, but Shalt Strive to Achieve Thine Own Understanding of the DMAIC Process and Lean Concepts; and Thou Shalt Ask Questions when Thou Hast Them, and further Thou Shalt Ask for Help whensoever it is Needed to Fulfill These Commandments.
X. Thou Shalt Write, Speak, and Present in Order to Spread the Six Sigma and Lean Message, because Communication Eight Times Eight Ways is Thy Future and Thy Job Security.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:37:20 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Whither Certification?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whither_certification.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There’s a lot of talk about Six Sigma certification these days. I remember being asked by a talent acquisition manager at a previous employer what it meant to be a “certified” Master Black Belt. The question arose because a quick search on Google turned up programs ranging from 3 days (online) to 2 years in length, and all of them offered “Master Black Belt Certification” as an end goal. In some cases the certification was automatic on completion of the program, in others it required things like project work, testing, or other forms of independently verifiable achievement. As we quickly established, it didn’t mean much at all to be a “certified” Master Black Belt.
Which isn’t to say that certification doesn’t have value. It’s just that it’s value isn’t consistent. And maybe that’s not a bad thing. In fact, in a roundabout way it might be a good thing.
I’ve been involved with the creation of three different Six Sigma certification programs at three different companies. In every case, we started off with the idea that certification should be tied to some external standard – for example, our Black Belts might have to take a test provided by an external quality organization or consultancy. The argument here is usually that standards may slip and/or be applied inconsistently if certification criteria are evaluated qualitatively from within the organization. The idea is to make certification more like a degree or professional accreditation, which in theory has consistent value across organizations.
I reject this view. Individuals who independently pursue achievements that result in recognizable, external certifications of some sort do so to further their individual goals. And the organizations that award such certifications have a vested interest in maintaining high standards so that the individuals they certify conform to certain expectations, furthering the reputation of the certifying organization. Colleges that award degrees are a perfect example. Individuals choose a college to pursue a degree to further their interests and/or career. Colleges won’t award a degree unless those individuals meet the standards they set out. And that makes perfect sense if you are a college.
But businesses are not colleges, and Six Sigma certifications are not degrees, and businesses pursue business goals not individual ones. There is no automatic value to a business in having either “tough” or “easy” certification criteria, or even criteria which are consistent in their application. Indeed, the only thing that should matter in setting up a certification program is what behavior the business wants to recognize and reward. Want to drive the efficient acquisition of knowledge? Design metrics and base certification around those. Want to complete a lot of projects quickly? Design your certification around that. Want to use Six Sigma certification to drive employee morale and buy in? Then certify everyone as they walk out the door of the training course. I could go on, but you get the idea. None of these methods of evaluation are good or bad ideas except in the context of what the organization wants to do.
If you think this argument is abstract, consider a conversation I had recently about a Black Belt (not at my company!) who was running a fairly complicated DOE and having trouble getting support and resources. I asked why. It turned out that the project was basically dead, but the DOE was being done because a DOE was required as part of the certification process. This was a case where the objectives of the certification process were not just out of alignment with the objectives of the organization – they were actually pulling in opposite directions. I’ve seen variation on this theme happen consistently when certification standards and criteria are out-sourced to consultants or quality organizations. Businesses need to use certification as a way to drive the behavior they want to see, and an outside organization simply can’t do that effectively, especially if it is trying to be consistent across many different businesses.
The key thing to remember is that certification itself has no value to the business whatsoever except as a driver of behavior. Of course, if you take this approach, inevitably someone will howl that “certification doesn’t mean anything”. My response? So what. It doesn’t have to "mean anything" outside the organization. All it has to do is motivate the behaviors that the organization is interested in. Nor do whatever standards you come up with have to be consistent. In my view the tenth person that gets certified in a business unit should almost certainly face elevated standards relative to the first person – that tenth person should be benefiting from the experience of others, and anyway, how else are you going to drive continuous improvement? And a Black Belt in HR isn’t going to be subject to the same set of standards as a Black Belt on the manufacturing floor – why would they, since the nature of the work is completely different? And I’m certainly not above certifying a key individual to drive culture change as opposed to for technical reasons. I do have standards, but I’m also ruthlessly focused on moving the organization where it needs to go. If you overlook certification as a way to do that – or if you’re asking someone outside the organization to do it for you - you’re overlooking a very powerful tool for driving behavior.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Help for Physicians]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/help_for_physicians.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After writing my recent blog, "Physician Heal Thyself," I attended a review session for the ASQ certification exam.  The subject of physicians came up when we were discussing identification of customers in healthcare.  One of the attendees reminded the group that  physicians tend to be diagnosticians, looking for a way to fit the patient’s symptoms into a disease classification so a treatment course can be determined.
This made me think:  Would physicians relate to Six Sigma concepts better if we called it AEDTO instead of DMAIC?
Assess = Define the problem, or gather patient / process symptoms
Evaluate = Measure the extent / impact of the problem
Diagnose = Analyze the results of the tests / eval, see which are significant or not
Treat = Improve the patient / process
On-going follow-up = Control to see whether the patient / process stays in the improved condition
Hmmm... something I will run by my physician Yellow Belt and Green Belt colleagues!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:28:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Physician, Heal Thyself!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/physician_heal_thyself.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What makes some physicians so difficult to convince of the need for change?
I'm talking about physicians who are extremely unhappy with the current state.  They complain to anyone who will listen.  They threaten to take their patient volume elsewhere.  They tell horror stories about orders they wrote that weren't filled, wrong items in the orthopedic implant tray, results that took days to be communicated.
And here we come, Healthcare Black Belts to save they day!  (We think.)
For these unhappy physicians, nothing gives them confidence that an improvement project will work.
1.  It will take too much time.  Three months?  Way too long.
2.  Data-based?  If it's not clinical data, it doesn't count.
3.  Measurement system analysis?  That doesn't square with what they observe.
4.  Voice of the customer?  THEY'RE the customers!  So give them what they want!
You are probably familiar with the saying, "When you've asked one physician for an opinion... you've asked one physician."  Meaning that, in order to understand what physicians want, you have to ask every physician for their opinion since no one will admit to being able to speak for anyone else (including department chairs).  And by the time you've gotten around to all the physicians, the first ones have probably changed their minds.
I haven't come across a miracle cure.  I've used one-on-one conversations, 10 minutes on the department meeting agenda, briefs at the Medical Executive meeting, special "operations" meetings with internists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, etc.  A key stakeholder physician who has a positive outlook and is in a position to influence others is great... if you can find one; some of my fellow Black Belts have been very fortunate that way.
With physicians having such an impact on our ability to provide consistent outcomes in our healthcare processes, it's a challenge dealing with individuals who believe that only their individual way is the right way.
Does anyone else have some enlightening words of wisdom to share, on the subject of physicians and improvement projects?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:53:12 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Week of a Black Belt Part 8: Lasting Management Commitment]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/week_of_a_black_belt_part_8_lasting_management_commitment.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Whatever the organization’s maturity level (go see “week of a black belt part 4-5-6-7”), any improvement initiative needs top management engagement and commitment. Usually, there is enough management attention at the beginning. The CEO or Executive team has announced the initiative and walks the talk for a while. However, there are so many 1000 things to manage when heading an organization and therefore there is a high risk of CEO or ET attention fading away.  
In my experience lasting top management commitment and engagement has to be earned (there are off course examples like GE and some others where this is not the case). 
One way to earn it: if you are in charge of running a process improvement deployment or if you are selecting business improvement projects, consider your management as a customer. Try to understand their needs and wants. Probably the CEO and his direct reports they have a “big Y” like “create more cash flow”. Use a Y=F(X) cascade approach to determine how they envision to accomplish this “big Y”. If within the big Y is a y “customer acquisition”, it may be nice to fix quality defects for your current customers, but it won’t earn you much attention. On the other hand, if you put some projects on your road map to improve customer acquisition processes, you will get more attention, because you have aligned your improvement agenda to the management agenda. This is just one way … 
I’m sure many of you have similar challenges and experiences. I’m looking forward to all your comments and suggestions how you have earned long lasting and sustained top management commitment and engagement. Thanks in advance for your reactions!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sven Saerens]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Week of a Black Belt part 4-5-6-7 : Ready for Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/week_of_a_black_belt_part_4_5_6_7__ready_for_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Time flies! My last “week of a Black Belt” blog dates from May 12th already. Anyhow, when things are busy and interesting things happen, there are lots of ideas to blog about, but no time to actually publish them.
Six Sigma’s 20th anniversary will be celebrated soon. Since 1987 and its first success stories, it has not gone by unnoticed. The number of published books, consultant organizations, internet publications, are no longer countable …
However, many people I talk to remain with some burning questions “When is an organization ready to adopt Six Sigma?” In many cases followed by “Or should we do Lean first?” and “What about BPM, are we better of with that?”  
I also observe that the companies who adopt it are generally local representations to US based multinationals or their suppliers. Also the infrastructure associated with a full pledged Six Sigma deployment is (rightfully or not?) perceived as too heavy on the small and medium enterprise that account for about 70% to our local economy.  
Personally, I think it really doesn’t matter what name an effort goes under. In all methodologies are good tools that can bring a lot of value to any organization, whether it is big or small, in service, transactional or production environments. The best approach for the organization is depending on its level of maturity. Maturity here is not defined in terms of age or magnitude, but in terms of how well the organization knows its customers, their needs and how well the business processes are able to satisfy those.
Consider 2 examples:
1. An organization with low maturity. Typical characteristics of such an organization: strong functional silos, no continuous improvement culture (it works, so why change it?), no clear understanding of customer needs and wants, management cannot sum up core processes when asked …
This organization should start with the basics: get to know its processes, its customers and their needs. To achieve this, it should use VOC tools. It should use SIPOC, process maps or value stream maps to document its processes. Start documenting at a high level, e.g. core process level. Once this is done, it should look for the biggest gaps between the VOC and the process outputs. These should be this organization’s first improvement projects. The organization should be process mapping again to detail the (core) processes that most contribute to the identified gaps. It should use simple and basic quality tools to get to those improvements implemented. Along the way, it will surely find some waste in the processes. Eliminate it! After the improvements are in place and obvious waste is eliminated, the organization should reflect on the learnings and start again. All along the effort document everything. Look for possible (future) process measurements.
Some might call this endeavor business process management, some might call it lean, some may call it Six Sigma. It doesn’t matter! It’s about getting the basics right first and institutionalizing a continuous improvement culture. To get this in place, there is probably no need for advanced training, for Design of Experiment or Design For Six Sigma …
2. Consider the other end of the spectrum: an organization where core processes are defined and have owners at high management level. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor the performance are in place. The customer’s needs and expectations are known and understood. 
Probably this organization has not just started a continuous improvement effort; they have started a while ago. However, the basic concepts of the improvement program are the same as in the low maturity organization, but this organization will need more sophisticated tools. This organization also needs to know its customers needs. The needs of customers today may differ of their needs tomorrow. Thus, by default, listening to the customers using VOC tools is a continuous ongoing exercise, for any organization. 
Having KPIs measuring process performance, implies that measurement systems are capturing process data continuously. This data is reported hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly … KPIs are use to manage the daily operational business. This requires quality measurements! The interest is in detecting and understanding variation in the processes and making the correct fact based decisions. 
Frequent gage R&amp;R exercises will need to sustain the quality of measurement and consequently the quality of operational management.  For improvement purposes, this organization will also need to identify its biggest gaps between its outputs and its customer’s expectations. This will create an improvement initiative engine as there is always room for improvement. As defect levels drop, the room for improvement by structured common sense will decrease as well, creating the need for more sophisticated tools and methodologies. This is the stage where e.g. DOE, DFSS, multiple regression, non-parametric tests and other come in. 
So, when are we ready for Six Sigma ?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sven Saerens]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:25:36 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Part 1 of 2]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/part_1_of_2.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Let me tell you a bit of a story and once you’ve finished reading it now I want you to forget all about it until the right time comes to remember you read it all.
There was once a couple who owned a store. The store was in a small village just east of here and because of that it was an unusual store. It was unusual as the stores biggest success was its sale of gumballs. It’s important to note that these were no ordinary gumballs. The couple had found some incredible gumball machines that promised many amazing things. The gumballs came in an amazing rainbow of colours, sizes and flavours and the couple knew once the gumball machines were installed that they would attract many customers. 
Now, the gumball machines themselves were extra special as they serviced themselves with no screwdrivers required and, as the locals started to buy gumballs, they found that the village began to change. And, incredibly, the more gumballs they bought the more change seemed to happen and the more changed seemed to happen the more gumballs they bought. 
And then the story took an interesting turn…
One summery day, one of the gumball machines developed a fault. The rest of the machines were working fine and as expected the faulty gumball machine began its self-maintenance routine. The usual rainbow of colours from the machine started to stutter and fail but people continued to drop in coins and kept looking for the amazing gumballs. "It will fix itself" the couple said "that’s what they do". 
But the machine continued to stick, the sticking got worse and this meant the river of rainbow coloured gumballs started to dry up. The machine, being a self maintaining machine, decided that its best option was to leave itself on all day and all night in a bid to shift the gumballs and fix the problem. Of course, as I know you’ve already guessed, the store closed at night time and once every so often the machine would manage, with a worrying series of whirrs and crunches, to force a stuck gumball through the mechanism, send it speeding through the shiny metal cover and onto polished floor where, after landing with a loud click it would roll quickly into a dusty corner of the shop where perhaps it would one day be found or perhaps it would be lost forever. 
The machine kept trying to force the gumballs though and the couple, although confused by the missing stock, left the machine alone as, after all, it was a self maintaining machine.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Brian Costello]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:36:02 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma and Innovation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_and_innovation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The latest issue of Harvard Business Review features an interview with Jeff Immelt, chairman and CEO of GE. It’s an interesting article because after years of growth through acquisition, GE has now shifted their roadmap to that of organic growth. As part of the roadmap, Jeff Immelt lists innovation as one of the six key initiatives that are going to drive GE to grow organically two to three times faster than world GDP.
I’m personally interested in hearing what companies are doing to drive innovation. If you or someone you know is working in a research and development (R&amp;D) role, or has as one of their job description responsibilities -- to drive innovation within your organization -- I’d like to spend 10 minutes on the telephone with them. Please contact me to chat or recommend someone that I should speak to: michael (at) isixsigma dot com.
I look forward to sharing the learnings of my discussions very soon on this blog.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:21:03 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: From Six Sigma to Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/from_six_sigma_to_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our health system began its Six Sigma journey about three years ago.  We started up in Wave I with three Black Belts at the two largest hospitals (myself among them) who had no  real idea of what would come.  After a successful round of projects in Phase I, we expanded to hire an additional 12 Black Belts to cover the rest of the hospitals, and moved two individuals up to Master Black Belt positions.  We had a great Wave II - ok, there were the usual growing pains, but overall we were feeling pretty good about ourselves.  Onward to Wave III!
Then we started learning more about lean.  Our executives loved the idea that we could move faster; the concepts and tools were simple to understand and easy to learn.  We shifted gears to start doing some lean projects (kiazens or Rapid Improvement Events as you prefer).  We had very good success; team members were enthusiastic and executives raved.  
Some of our Black Belts, myself included, were happy to learn the lean tools but were not as comfortable with the lean projects as with the DMAIC methodology.  I was puzzled because I liked everything about lean, except for the kaizen project structure, and I couldn’t figure out why this might be so.  After a lot of reflection, I came up with a theory.  It’s based on the Meyers-Briggs personality types - an assessment based on individual preferences in four areas:  introvert-extrovert, intuitive-sensing, thinking-feeling, judging-perceiving.
The DMAIC methodology is perfect for intuitive-thinking types.  These individuals are called "the Rationals" according to Keirsey, and are highly skilled in strategic analysis.  You want to go in there, look at a problem, analyze it, and then pick the right solution.  You invest a lot of time and effort into making things right, and the payoff is doing it right the first time.  Achieving the goal is the thing.
The lean methodology, on the other hand, is perfect for sensing-feeling types.  Keirsey calls these "the Artisans" whose strengths are in tactical variation - that is, trying things out and honing activities until perfection is approached.  You want to go in there, look at a problem, and start trying to make things better.  If at first you don’t succeed, try try again!  You invest a lot of energy into making things get better one step at a time, and the payoff is seeing how far you have come.  Making the journey is the thing.
I’m pretty firmly in the intuitive-thinking camp, so that was my "aha" moment of why I didn’t have the same enthusiasm for Lean as I did for DMAIC.  Having explained this, at least for myself, I started to wonder whether I would have been more comfortable incorporating lean tools if I had approached it from this perspective from the start.  Of course, most of us are perfectly capable of using whatever tools are required to achieve process improvements.  But I wonder whether knowing our personality preferences is just as useful as knowing the tools of Six Sigma and Lean.
What do you think?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2006 05:54:30 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Good News]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/good_news.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
I do my fair share of venting. OK, sometimes I even go on a rant. I have lots of great horror stories. Unbelievable team members, the Project from You-Know-Where, and the day my computer crashed and I lost 6 hours of data entry. I love swapping these stories, and playing "Can you top this?" To listen to me tell it, my career as a healthcare Black Belt has been rife with disaster the entire time I’ve been in this position.
But every now and again some very good things happen - the memories sneak up on me, when I’m not expecting it. 


· The two team members who started out fighting like cats and dogs - each came to me and said they wanted to leave the team if the other person was going to stay - and who ended up respecting each other and telling me, "I never realized how hard the other person’s job really was, and how well she does it."
· The Green Belt who quickly became a partner in our quest for improvement.
· The nurse who said, "You’ll never get the doctors to change their behavior" and confessed at the end of the project that she had changed her opinion about just what was and wasn’t possible.
· The team member I really didn’t like, but who ended up teaching me more about myself than I wanted to know - and I became a better Black Belt for it. (Hard as that is to confess.)
When we get together with our fellow Belts, maybe it’s a good idea to bring out the positive stories as well as the negative ones. Got any great - good - stories to share with us?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2006 11:28:34 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Process Owner Dilemma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/process_owner_dilemma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
My favorite quote, from a Manager identified as a Six Sigma project Process Owner: "Well if I’d known that being a Process Owner involved this much work, I would have never volunteered to be one!"
In healthcare, we haven’t traditionally discussed the leadership role of process management. In fact, "running healthcare like a business" isn't usually a complimentary phrase. We run around writing Standard Operating Procedures whenever we suspect it’s our turn for the JACHO or HCFAP visit, and occasionally we run across someone who feels a personal mission to improve their departmental operations.  But, if you ask some healthcare leaders what processes they own, you have just switched to a foreign language. The two concepts - process, and ownership - are not usually part of the culture. Sometimes, the concept is also skipped in DMAIC training.  I was mid-way through my first project when my MBB asked for the name of my process owner, because he/she would be expected to participate in the R3 (Improve) report-out. Until that time I had no clue as to what a Process Owner was, let alone how to find one.
Our poor healthcare managers are so BUSY.  They are constantly swamped with multiple call-ins, intermittent leaves of absence, and high staff turnover.  Nursing and ancillary staff recruitment challenges are tremendous.  Every day brings new and conflicting high-priority assignments.  "Emergency" meetings are called more and more frequently.  No wonder some leaders feel that being assigned as a Process Owner is more of a punishment than a recognition of their responsibility and accountability inherent in their job titles.  And, as a former Manager and Director myself, I can relate to their feelings of being overwhelmed.  But I still need an active, effective Process Owner for my project to be successful!
In our project discussions, we use the explanation that the Six Sigma / Lean project is the means by which their departmental operations will improve, and therefore the project is related directly to the Process Owner's main responsibilities, so it's not an add-on burden.  Somehow, through all the high-priority emails, full meeting calendars, and emergency budget conferences, it just doesn't feel so clear-cut for the leaders I have worked with.  They're too busy managing the crisis(es) to manage the process(es).
This has been the greatest challenge for me as a Black Belt - how to get the understanding of "ownership" across to a leader who hasn't been exposed to that concept in the 30+ years they've been upwardly progressing.  Yes, each of our projects now has a Process Owner identified as part of scoping the project, in pre-Define preparation. Yes, we now have the Process Owner routinely helping to present the Improve and Control report-outs. Yes, we're developing a Process Owners course through our Learning Institute (tentatively entitled "Healthcare Process Management").  But we haven’t been consistently successful at getting the buy-in from all of our Process Owners to make the Control phase sustained over the long term.  They're all too busy doing their "real" jobs to worry about a project that's "finished."
What wonderful piece of knowledge about Process Owner development am I missing?  Do any of you have training classes or parts of your project structure devoted to helping leaders buy into the concept of process ownership?  Please share your thoughts!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2006 09:49:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The People Side of Lean]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_people_side_of_lean.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the beginning… there is some valid concern expressed about the people side of lean and how individuals are affected by Lean initiatives in the public sector.  There is a common, prima facie response when lean thinking is first introduced in the public sector.   “We are about serving people not making cars”, they say.  This is a normal reaction that overtime is proven inaccurate as the benefits of lean thinking are realized through mapping of the work process, an increase of value added activity and a reduction of waste. This leads to a significant increase of morale among employees who have participated in the value stream mapping process.  Each response is certainly individual but most become owners of the future state that is created and as owners, continuous improvement becomes the natural order of things.   
Additionally, lean initiatives are in most cases introduced as a management initiative and thus suspicion is the first reaction from those representing labor’s perspective. It is easy to assume that lean metrics are an evolution of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management and thus a “top down” management initiative.  This certainly is part of lean thinking in that leadership must make a conscious decision to pursue lean thinking, however, there is a significant participatory aspect included since each value stream is completed by the people who do the work.  This is best understood by reviewing the three basic paradigms of public management, Universalism, Pluralism and Participatory management styles.  During my graduate studies I had the great opportunity to write a paper about the three basic paradigms of public administration. (see http://geocities.com/scrate/three_paradigms.html).  I have concluded that lean thinking and the value stream mapping process is a successful blend of universalism and participatory management paradigms bringing the best of both approaches to a wonderful evolution of employee satisfaction, high performance and a highly functional public organization.
Another critical factor regarding the people side of lean relates to its overall influence on individual performance.  No employee wakes up in the morning and says I will do a terrible job today. I plan to perform at my worst for the whole day.  That does not occur. Everyone would like to rise to their greatest potential at every opportunity possible.   Remember those NBA games when Larry Bird hit 10 for 10 from the foul line, 7 three-pointers and 9 from the field? It might be said he was operating in the zone, or demonstrating peak performance. (I know I am aging my self.)   This is an easy concept for most to understand.  But what of the administrative public employee completing a service request for a citizen or the professional technical staff person running that program analysis to compute federal statistics justifying units of service.  Do they regularly get any acknowledgement for top performance?  Does anyone even measure their tasks?  Do they have any personal goals or “stats” to work against?  If they did, their satisfaction would be increased and performance enhanced.  They would move from viewing their job as a chore to valuing their service to the organization.  So goes government. 
The Value Stream mapping process can provide this feedback, increase value and reduce waste resulting in higher employee performance.  When performance is increased employee satisfaction is increased, turnover is reduced and overall organization function is better. People (employees) are transformed to a more satisfactory view of their job and the public organization rises to citizen expectations and thrives in excellence.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 May 2006 18:16:45 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: It's Not Easy Being Green... Belt]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/its_not_easy_being_green_belt.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
I’m sure this never happened to any other Healthcare Black Belts: You’ve been selected as a Black Belt for a team, and you’re assigned one or two Green Belts for the project. Early in the project you notice that one of the Green Belts is pretty weak in a number of areas… basic things like showing up on time, having poor interpersonal skills, and being more interested in using the computer to revise their resume than to enter data.
So, you say to yourself, "Hey! This Green Belt isn’t a very good supervisor - manager - whatever - how did he/she ever get picked for this highly prestigious and supposedly upwardly mobile assignment???" (And, let's be brutally honest, some of our Green Belts are asking the same question about us!).
Do you go to the top leaders and complain about their Green Belt Selection? Do you confront the Green Belt, and if so, how? Do you make it your mission to "fix" the Green Belt, because by gum, you’re a change agent after all? Do you kick the Green Belt off your team? Do you grin and bear it, because hey, it’s only one project and with luck you’ll never see this particular Green Belt again?
I’ve had strong Green Belts who were a major factor in success, and I’ve had Green Belts I would have been better off without. Looking back, I’m not sure I supported the weak ones as well as I should have. What advice would you give to a new Black Belt? Or an experienced one?]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 11:36:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma on Six Sigma. I dare you!]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_on_six_sigma_i_dare_you.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For a year now I have been running a Six Sigma Deployment on a Rail Project in Rugby (UK).
My two main problems as deployment manager are; 
1. Implementation of actions 2. Proving the projected cash savings. 
Both problems are as you can imagine at the back end of the DMAIC process. 
I also run every 8 weeks a Yellow Belt training course. One of the Project Managers who has been trained as a Black Belt suggested that I ran a Yellow Belt PIP on each of my two problems. 
For this article, lets forget about the specifics of my two problems (I will update you on the results when the PIPs have finished). 
When the Project Manager suggested this, in front of the project executive I may add, the tables were turned: Now the Black Belt was having his processes looked at: Now the Black Belt was seen as failing, yes failing. Well…..that’s what I felt like.
When he suggested this, I felt all the emotions that the managers / process owners must have felt when I presented the, often dam$ing PROBLEM statements in front of the executive so many times before:
1.  Fear2.  Defensiveness3.  Affronted 
I wanted to ‘pass the buck’. I was making excuses, but in hindsight, I believe I felt relief that someone was going to help me with this problem, because, I needed help.
I would strongly recommend doing Six Sigma on Six Sigma. 
To become a more rounded Black Belt we all need to have empathy with the people we are going to cast ‘aspersions’ on with our Problem Statements and metrics. We need to sit on the other side of the fence and be a Six Sigma team member not a facilitator.
I would really like to hear if any of you have tried something similar.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[J P Spencer]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 08:02:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma and Healthcare...  An oxymoron?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_and_healthcare_an_oxymoron.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How many healthcare processes have you measured that are 2.0 Zst or higher at the start of the project?  I've never had one of these - most of mine have started at below 1.0 or in the negative Sigma range.
In every one of my projects, I've had to use lean tools to get where I needed to go.  Usually, I can't find a standard procedure (or there's a paper procedure that no one follows).  Or, there are such variances between shifts that there are 2 or 3 standard processes.  
In my very first project, Inpatient Discharge, we found that none of the x's were significant.  In my second project, Emergency Department Door-to-Doc, we found that all of the x's were significant.  In addition to these clues, in both projects, everyone we interviewed had a different version of what the standard process was.
In my most recent project, Admission through the ED, there were 12 "supplier groups" in our SIPOC process map (ED Nurses, ED Techs, ED Physicians, Admitting Physicians, Case Managers, Bed Control Managers, ED Unit Clerks, Nursing Unit Clerks, Nursing Unit Nurses, Housekeepers, Maintenance, and Registration Clerks.)  Each had a different time for shift change, with 8, 10, and 12 hour shifts among the various groups.  The process changed each time a group's shift changed.  You won't be surprised to find out that we started at a negative Sigma level.  We moved to lean tools almost immediately.  And yes, we did reach a positive Sigma outcome, although we also followed up by chartering two Standard Work Projects, one for housekeeping and one for getting the patient ready for departure to their inpatient room.  
This makes me think that perhaps we should not start a DMAIC project with a very low Zst score - we should do a standard work project first.  Is Lean - then Six Sigma - a logical approach?  Or should we start with Six Sigma / DMAIC and then incorporate lean in the Improve phase?  SHould I'd love to know more about your own experiences.  Thanks in advance for sharing.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2006 13:51:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What We Ask Our Black Belts To Do]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/what_we_ask_our_black_belts_to_do.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am regularly asked what characterizes an ideal Black Belt candidate. Like most people in the field, I have a list of adjectives and descriptive phrases I can trot out at a moment’s notice. Mine comprises about 50 items under the following headings: 1) Aptitude For Change; 2) Education and Experience; 3) Intellectual Curiosity; 4) Leadership and Interpersonal Factors. If pressed, I have a PowerPoint version of my list that I can speak to. If really pressed, I have even organized my list into matrix that can be used to score candidates. But to be honest I find that one good conversation with their manager is usually more informative than completing the matrix.
Every time the question comes up, I have the same thought after answering it: in order to define what characterizes an ideal Black Belt candidate, we first need to understand what we expect Black Belts to do. And every time I try to do that, I’m struck by some basic problems. Because often, we seem to expect them to do everything.
Consider a basic tool taught in most Six Sigma curricula: the SIPOC, which stands for Supplier, Input, Process, Output, Customer. (Some organizations cleverly reverse the acronym – COPIS – to emphasize that the customer should come first. Others add additional letters in various spots.) The purpose of a SIPOC is noble – to understand the entire process at high level, beginning with the supplier and ending with the customer. And while the Black Belt normally has a team in place to help them formulate and develop the SIPOC, it’s the Black Belt who owns the tool and the project at the end of the day.
It’s right about here that I start to get confused about what we are asking Black Belts to do. The dogma is that projects need to start and end with the customer, plus include the entire value stream, plus reach out to suppliers, plus touch on multiple functions within the organization. And while there can and should be a project team in place, the ultimate responsibility for all of these things does lie with the Black Belt. But how many Black Belts are suitably qualified (via experience, positional authority, contacts within the organization, etc, etc) to reach out in all these directions effectively? Can you think of a single individual in your organization that you’d be comfortable asking to do all of those things – personally visit with customers, work with suppliers, cut across internal functions, etc, etc? In my experience those people are extremely rare, and many of them already have “chief” somewhere in their title.
So where does that leave us? We need to develop Black Belts through training and experience, of course, but that takes time a multiple projects. What to do on the first, second, and third projects? Picking the right team is one obvious answer, but if the Black Belt doesn’t know what they are doing to a certain extent in all areas, then picking teams members who are very good at their particular function may or may not turn out well in the end. And it’s not easy to do, because those people are typically in very high demand. Anyone who has seen a wave of 20-30 (or more) Black Belts all attack their first projects at once knows this firsthand.
My suggestion is that the organization in general, and the Six Sigma (or equivalent) function in particular, should bear some responsibility for managing the interface between generation of knowledge (i.e. finding out what to do) and the execution pathway suggested by that knowledge (i.e. doing it). Put another way, perhaps the role of the Black Belt ought to be to investigate, understand and recommend…but execution and other aspects of realization ought to be left to those who best understand the area where the activity will occur.
For example, why do we ask Black Belts to go out and listen to voice of the customer? Don’t we have sales and marketing functions that ought to be doing that? Presumably those folks will be much better at it than a newly minted Black Belt anyway because, frankly, they ought to be experts. And if the sales and marketing folks aren’t good at it, then perhaps we ought to focus on that problem rather than institutionalizing a workaround via Six Sigma training. Which I think is what we are really doing if we give Black Belts end-to-end responsibility for a project. We’re admitting that our functions don’t work well together. If we ask a Black Belt with an engineering background to go out and listen to voice of the customer, then we might win the battle for the specific project (although in practice I actually don’t think this happens very often), but we lose the war for organizational effectiveness as a whole. And that’s definitely not what we should be asking Black Belts to do.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: &quot;It's So Simple!&quot;]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/its_so_simple.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
I’ve been in the healthcare field all of my professional life.  Whether this is your situation, or you have joined us lately, perhaps you’ve noticed the same thing I have.  We all know what to do to make things better in our hospitals and facilities. It’s true… just ask anyone.  Solve ER overcrowding? Reduce room turnover between OR cases? Fix lab turn-around time? Reduce errors in medication dispensing?  Everyone you ask will have the answer. (Usually, of course, it’s someone else’s fault and someone else’s problem to fix.)
And, it’s always "so simple."  Even Henry Ford said, "You just put the work in front of the men, and they do it." People should know what to do!  Customer service: smile and greet patients like they are welcome in our facilities.  How hard is that? We shouldn’t need to hire million-dollar consultants for that, should we?  High-quality health care: follow standard operating procedure. It’s right there in the manual, referenced from a dozen national quality organizations!  On-time OR case starts: just make sure everyone, including the surgeon, knows to come in 15 minutes early.  Easy!
And yet, and yet…  When you ask the magic question, "How do you make things better?" what responses to you get? "Well, that is a tough question." "You’re right, that’s the hard part." "Well, it’s difficult, alright." "That’s the $24-million dollar question, isn’t it?"  "We've hired consultants to help us with that."
When I read books and articles on management, healthcare, and Six Sigma, there are lots of people with lots of advice about "what to do."  1. Get leadership commitment.  2. Hire the right Black Belts.  3. Develop a strong infrastructure.  4. Design a good recognition and rewards program.  Not too many people come up with the "how to do it."  Granted, each of us is in a unique environment and culture.  But, even when we use lean and Six Sigma tools, there can be tremendous difficulty in getting people to agree to "do the right things right at the right time."  And we're all looking for the simple - miracle - answer, aren't we?
When we come across someone who has a "simple" answer, rather than just nodding our heads, we should ask – "Just how do you do that?"  (Followed by, of course, "What data do you have to back that up?")   And we should not accept "It’s so simple!" for an answer, especially if we’re paying someone to answer the question.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:28:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Upward Management in Healthcare Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/upward_management_in_healthcare_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How many healthcare Black Belts think the biggest Six Sigma challenge is not project management, or coaching your team, but teaching your Project Sponsor / Executive Sponsor / Process Owner about Six Sigma?  This is something I've encountered in early Six Sigma Project Waves.
The scenario I'm thinking about is the one where you're meeting with leadership about your project.  In public meetings, they've been supportive; however, to you they say things like:
"I don't think that Green Belt will be able to attend too many of your meetings, I've got her on two special projects already."
"We're having a JCAHO inspection in March so team members won't be available to you that month."
"There's no money in the budget for Six Sigma expenses like a team lunch."
"You'll have to go through the normal purchasing procedures if you want to buy a new fax for that department; it usually takes six months if you can talk the Director into approving the purchase in the first place - but good luck."
You may go to your Executive Sponsor, Master Black Belt, or other Six Sigma leader, only to be told "That's part of your job as a Black Belt to work with everyone to get them on board."   But some Directors or Vice Presidents may not acknowledge your authority to tell them to spend money, take people out of clinical care areas, or re-arrange their plans for the upcoming inspection.  Certainly this is even more difficult when Six Sigma is first being introduced to a hospital or healthcare system.
In one project that I know of, the Black Belt had to put up with a lot of negative push-back from the Executive Sponsor and Process Owner (with the Project Sponsor pretty much absentee the whole time).  He persevered, though, with assistance from his MBB.  By the end of his successful project (which had a large financial benefit), he had gained enough political capital to make the leadership team much more action-oriented during the next project.  
What has worked for you, when you've come across difficulties with your leadership team?  Was there something specific that helped to get them to the "aha" moment of what Six Sigma is all about?  Please share your experiences.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:22:33 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Does It Actually Matter What We Teach Black Belts?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/does_it_actually_matter_what_we_teach_black_belts.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In an earlier blog entry (here), I described my feelings on DMAIC and roadmaps in general. To make a long story short, I don’t believe they add much value to the core toolset of Six Sigma. A couple of folks quite rightly expressed their disagreement with my view via comments (here). I say quite rightly, because I don’t have data to back up my hypothesis that the roadmaps don’t matter. To get that data it would be necessary to run experiments at a program level comparing projects (or even entire deployments) done with and without a roadmap. I haven’t done that, and I don’t know of anyone else that has either.
Lack of data, however, generally doesn’t stop me from speculating. And in that spirit, while we’re talking about program-level and deployment-level experiments, there’s one that is even more fundamental that I have often thought about. It’s a scary one to consider about for those of us whose jobs, in whole or in part, involve arranging and facilitating Six Sigma training. The experiment essentially asks the question: does it really matter what we teach Black Belts?
Let me explain. Any Six Sigma program that I’ve ever seen or heard of (or any continuous improvement program, for that matter) starts off with a pitch to executives in which some version of the following conditions are laid out, either by external consultants or an internal champion:

We need your absolute best people;
We need to free up those people to focus exclusively on Six Sigma work;
We need the most important projects to work on;
We need to make sure those projects are properly scoped and resourced;
We need to ensure that the organization supports people working on these projects from top to bottom.
Conditions 1-3 are usually the toughest to satisfy for reasons which are perhaps obvious, although 4 and 5 aren’t exactly easy either. In fact, most deployment leaders will tell you that a high percentage of their time is spent on 1 and 2 alone for the first few years of a deployment. Nevertheless, assuming the program is agreed to and competently managed, we end up somehow bringing our best folks together for four intense weeks of training, during which the concepts, tools, and methodology of Six Sigma are taught. Projects gets worked, and results happen. Everyone’s happy.
My question is this: what if we did exactly the same thing, but didn’t teach Six Sigma? What if we got our best folks together in a room one a week for four weeks over four months, focused them exclusively on the most important projects to the business, and gave them the resources and support they needed to get the job done…but didn’t teach them any new methodology? Would the outcome be materially different than if we taught them some roadmap or program?
In other words, maybe satisfying the conditions 1-5 – which make no mention whatsoever of methodology, roadmaps, DMAIC, statistics, etc, etc – is what continuous improvement really amounts to. Maybe the “sexy” methodology and jargon only provide a to a way to get the organization to agree to conditions 1-5 in the first place. Maybe the whole Six Sigma ball of wax is no more than a means to create the will to satisfy conditions 1-5.
This is the experiment that I invariably run in my head each time I go to a training event. I am struck every time by how bright and energetic the participants are, and how quickly they come together and make progress on their projects. This occurs in spite of – or perhaps because of – the fact that they are usually drawn from different geographies and business units. I’ve been involved with training programs that I think are absolutely top notch, but nonetheless I wonder…would these folks make more progress if we just got rid of the obstacles and let them get down to it with out interfering? Do we really need to teach them anything?
My hunch is no. I suspect if we truly got the best people focused on the most important projects with the right resources behind them, we wouldn’t actually have to teach them a thing. The problem is that conditions 1-3 are extremely difficult (maybe impossible?) to produce in the absence of a program with a lot of “sizzle”. That is, it’s relatively easy at this point in history to sell a Six Sigma program with all the attendant hoopla, but for whatever reason it’s hard to sell the idea of simply getting our best people working on our most important projects with everything else cleared out of the way. Perhaps when it comes down to it, the only reason to have a Six Sigma program at all is to create conditions 1-5. Maybe what we teach truly doesn’t matter.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Key Performance Indicators in Strategic Planning for Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/key_performance_indicators_in_strategic_planning_for_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It is very important to understand how to create a good key performance indicator or KPI for Six Sigma.  This is also true when you add Six Sigma to your strategic plan, as I have.
The KPIs that you develop must first be a goal(s) of your organization, department, etc.  These should be agreed upon.  Remember, these will indicate the target performance levels and the guiding light for your work, so get consensus.
As a leader the KPIs will help you make decisions, guide you to where you need to collect data (baselines) so you can create targets and give you an indication of what improvement(s) have been gained/lost and how you should use that data.  Keep in mind that these should be flexible too.
Do not keep your organization set to such stringent KPIs that they are constantly failing.  After your first year, if you fail to reach your targets look at why, don't just press to do better next year, keeping with the same goals set at the beginning of your strategic plan.  
Remember that in our changing world, we need to be able to change too. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Lisa Moore]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:08:16 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Who Am I, and Why Am I Here?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/who_am_i_and_why_am_i_here.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Healthcare Black Belt seeks long-distance relationship with diverse group of process improvers willing to share opinions and experiences about the challenges of getting the right people to do the right things right."
First order of business:  Who am I?  I ask myself this question frequently.  Every time I change jobs, it's an opportunity to reinvent myself.  Currently, I'm a Six Sigma Black Belt with three years of experience with Six Sigma and Lean in healthcare.  I've enjoyed the structure and rigor of Six Sigma, while being challenged by individuals who don't think in terms of process.  I've been humbled - and reinvigorated - by my transformation from being an expert in my previous area, the clinical laboratory, to becoming a "newbie" at process improvement.  I'm an optimist by nature, teacher by outlook, psychologist by necessity, and an INTP to boot.
Second order of business:  Why am I here?  I'll use this space to share my opinions about the "A" side of the equation - where Q (the quality of the solution) x A (the acceptance of the stakeholders) = E (the effectiveness of the solution).  I'm fascinated by the "people side" of this work - how to get buy-in; why some of us would rather develop work-arounds than follow a standard process; the all-pervasive "That will never work!" and my favorite, "You'll NEVER get the doctors to go along with that!"  From a team perspective, what's the best way to turn nay-sayers and eye-rollers into converts?  What's the change that has to take place in order to build a true Six Sigma organization?
I really look forward to our conversations together.  Let me leave you with a question, to start:  If you're involved in a Six Sigma effort, what's the ONE THING you wish you'd been told when you started?  Here's what I was actually told - it only took my 2 years to really believe it:  "Six Sigma is not only about the data.  Six Sigma success is based on relationship-building bound to a common philosphy."  What should someone have told you, at the beginning of your journey?
Let the blogging begin!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sue Kozlowski]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:36:07 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: What's The Point Of A Project?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/whats_the_point_of_a_project.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
In a perfect world, every project would lead directly to financial gain. We’d draft a charter that, when well executed, produced savings or income that translated directly to the bottom line. And this would be good because we all like making money. We can put it in the bank, earn interest on it, add many small amounts together, and eventually buy the things we need and want. That’s true of both businesses and individuals. We like financial gain not for itself, but because we enjoy the benefits that financial gain can bring. So, we conceive of most projects along the lines of the structure below.

Trouble is, the link between project goals and delivering financial gain is seldom as direct as we’d like it to be. Although there are exceptions, most projects require an intermediate series of steps wherein it is necessary to learn something. In other words, although we’d all like to proceed directly to financial gain, we usually don’t know how. So the project ought to be about going out and gaining some useful knowledge, then turning that knowledge into financial gain. The picture ends up looking something like the structure below. As I said before, there are exceptions (a project to increase capacity on a known product or service in an underserved market, for example), but in my experience the vast majority of Six Sigma projects have to follow the knowledge gain pathway because it’s the most efficient route to financial gain. If this wasn’t true, then the project would probably be addressed through some other methodology.

This being the case, it’s worth thinking about what we teach our Black Belts, and what we demand of them in terms of intermediate and final results. Certainly we all want the benefits of financial gain in the long run, and every project ought to have financial metrics. But if we recognize that knowledge gain is almost always a necessary precursor to financial gain for Six Sigma projects (and particularly if we believe that knowledge gain is the most efficient route to financial gain), then we ought to include in our methodology and metrics a way to capture and evaluate what has been learned as well. In fact, I believe this so strongly that I often insist problem statements be re-worded to emphasize knowledge gain at least as much as financial gain. Just like money can be banked and accrue interest, so too can knowledge. If we emphasize and value knowledge gain in our projects we end up not only making money, but increasing the level of knowledge in the organization as well. And just like with money, we can store knowledge away, assemble small amounts into larger ones over time, and pull it when we need it on a rainy day. In others words, knowledge is a bankable currency in the organization, just like money. 

In fact, looking at the diagram above, one might take the view that stored knowledge actually has more much intrinsic value that stored currency, because well-managed knowledge can be converted into dollars more than once; that is, even though we can withdraw at will from the knowledge bank, our store of knowledge does not deplete. Further, we have control over when and how we convert knowledge into financial gain, so it is a very flexible currency as well.
This is certainly not an original observation - indeed, I’m fairly confident that diagrams like the ones above have been scratched out in many organizations for more years that I’ve been alive - yet how many Six Sigma projects have metrics that measure knowledge gain in addition to financial gain? It’s a continuous improvement truism that we need to measure what’s important to us. My contention is that our measurements should include an assessment of what is being learned in addition to what is being accomplished. Properly managed and focused Six Sigma projects ought to deliver both knowledge gain and financial gain, and to make that happen the project (and program) metrics need to reflect both streams.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Lean Government Conference]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_lean_government_conference.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just a brief note of a great conference coming up on May 18 &amp; 19, 2006 in Alexandra, Virginia. Sponsored by The Performance Institute, The Lean Six Sigma for Government Conference will provide first hand case studies about government agencies where Lean Six Sigma tools are being successfully used. 
You can review the details at:  http://www.performanceweb.org/CENTERS/GPM/Events/P596/P596.htm
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:11:34 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Goblins, Lochs &amp; Hurdling Penguins]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/goblins_lochs_amp_hurdling_penguins.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our company has put a recent focus on ‘away days’ for its senior teams. You know the sort of thing. The whole team ups and goes off into the wilds with threats of being left in the middle of nowhere with a tin of soup, a pencil and an elastic band. Living in Scotland we have the joy of many stunning locations in the middle of nowhere and we took ourselves off to Aberfoyle in the Trossachs. One of the few places in Scotland, apart from my local supermarket, where there is no network coverage for cell phones.
This rural setting drove one of my Black Belt colleagues to have 14 of us spinning around a car park, making bizarre gestures with our hands while lightly whooping in an apparent homage to Goblins. This seems to have been the standout activity of the day and definitely ranked as the funniest part of the whole experience. This was closely followed by his later car park based activity when we pretended to be ‘Penguins in Training’ which involved us repeatedly slapping our thighs and whacking ourselves on the head. Feel free to share any of your own bizarre team activities as the next away day is a mere 12 months away and I’m looking for something to top the Goblin whooping!
All in all though it was a really fun, engaging and effective way to get massive amounts of discussion, brain-storming (or ‘thought-sharing’ for the PC mad amongst you) and planning done for what will be an world shatteringly transformational time for our whole company. Our team have been put at the forefront of this transformation and that brings its own cocktail of excitement and anticipation shaken up with a measure of adrenaline and served over ice with a cocktail cherry, a dash of fear and a wee paper umbrella. 
It was never like this in the Training team…
I would heartily recommend that next time you need to plan, organise, strategise and envision the future then get yourself well away from the office. Go somewhere quiet, stay overnight, switch off your phone, leave the lap top at home and immerse yourself in the whole spirit of being a team. If your first response is ’I can’t switch off my phone’ or ’i can’t afford a day away from the office’ then perhaps you need to reprioritise and ask yourself some tough questions.  The benefits are plentiful and are there to be had if you can just look up from your data long enough to see them. I am now a fully fledged advocate of the well planned and facilitated ‘Away Day’ and if anyone wants any more info on how well ours was run then let me know and i can give you some tips, tricks and info on the penguin thing!
Still no offers of a book deal for my Gather &amp; Fudge methodology. I’m sure it’s just a delayed reaction to the profound nature of the whole concept. Get in touch if you have any refinements to the concept and perhaps I can work them in before I get published.
Speak soon.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Brian Costello]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 04:20:30 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Managers of the Leaders of Innovation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/managers_of_the_leaders_of_innovation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Before beginning any implementation of Lean Six Sigma in health care, it is important to get support and buy-in from management.  Health care is a very conservative industry filled with professionals that maintain a traditional school of thought.  Even though the health care industry has grown accustomed to change, the uneasiness of implementing a process improvement initiative like Lean Six Sigma is not well received.  Those entrenched in the field find it difficult to understand the application of a manufacturing technique to the human element.  Therefore, a great deal of effort is spent trying to encourage staff to embrace and adopt the Lean Six Sigma way of life.
With the amount of time that is spent trying to establish and maintain buy-in from those working at the forefront of health care, little thought is every put in to how much buy-in must be gained from the management staff.  It is because of this, that a good number of Lean Six Sigma implementations, in health care, are unable to sustain.  A mistake that myself, as well as fellow implementers, have made is assuming that the project champions have spent the time necessary communicating the impending changes to the management staff, as well as establishing buy-in from them.  Likewise, the project champions have mistakenly assumed that the initial buy-in from the management staff has been established by the implementer.  As a result, management is often left looking for answers on how to sustain after the Kaizen event or the implementation.  While they are able to, as innovative leaders in the organization, see the big picture of what Lean Six Sigma is trying to accomplish, they are not equipped with the necessary tools to sustain the way of life that successful companies like Toyota have withheld.  Therefore, it is critical that proper project management be in place to ensure that management is able to maintain this new, radical, culture in health care.  When creating a project charter and defining the scope of the project, it is essential that one of the deliverables of a successful implementation be to have unwavering support from the mid-level management.  This should include intense training that is apart from the necessary training that the staff receives prior to starting any kaizen event.  Further, at some level, it is extremely important to keep the management staff involved in whatever type of kaizen event that is occurring.  Doing this will allow the management to follow the progression of a Lean Six Sigma implementation and develop a formula for accountability and sustainability.  
It has been widely accepted that the middle managers are the key innovators of the organization.  As such, the managers of an innovative process such as Lean Six Sigma must be allowed to understand and embrace the process as they help to ensure that it becomes a way of life and not just the "flavor of the month."]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew M. Hillig]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Beyond DMAIC]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_beyond_dmaic.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There is a strong tendency for Six Sigma programs to forge an inextricable link between project management roadmaps, notably DMAIC, and statistical tools. This has never made much sense to me. In my experience, Six Sigma programs can not only exist and survive without the use of typical roadmaps, but prosper and flourish.
In the vast majority of Six Sigma environments, it borders on heresy to even ponder whether some, if not all, projects couldn’t perhaps be completed without the use of a roadmap. While it is probably the case that the DMAIC framework is efficient and appropriate for a certain subset of projects in most organizations, I have never been able to accept it as the panacea that most people in the field seem to. And by people, I mean consultants and executives. Not experienced practitioners, because by the second or third Six Sigma project most folks on the front lines eventually realize that toll-gate driven roadmap processes consume enormous amounts of time and energy in the form of meetings. In fact, I suspect the majority of seasoned Black Belts would abandon toll gate reviews in a hurry if they had the choice.
Consider a class of 24 Black Belts, all of whom will complete 2 projects in a year. Suppose (conservatively) that each project team has 5 members, and (again conservatively) that each toll gate review will take 30 minutes. That adds up to 120 hours of time spent in meetings involving those who are supposedly the best and brightest in the company. And what do those meetings produce? Certainly they gather stakeholders together to inform and discuss aspects of the project. But do they make a material difference to the outcome of the project? In other words, would the end result be better, worse, or the same if we gave the Black Belt responsibility and authority to organize the project and team meetings as they saw fit, as opposed to imposing a DMAIC structure? I submit that in my experience there are few negative consequences to abandoning the toll-gate-roadmap approach, and numerous positive consequences. Fewer meetings are one such benefit…admittedly one of my favorites!
It is undoubtedly true that DMAIC and other roadmaps are: a) easy to teach; and b) easy to administer. This makes the roadmap approach a darling of consultants (who see a consistent and portable program that can easily be taught in many different environments) and executive management (who see that DMAIC in particular lends itself to tidy dashboards and displays). But do the steps add value to a product or service? In most organizations I suspect the Lean folks would consider canceling toll gate meetings an easy, quick-win project. My hunch is that they would be correct in most cases.
What’s the null hypothesis here? If the tacit assumption taught by consultants and embraced by executives asserts that roadmaps and tollgates are necessary, the hypothesis that needs testing is something to the effect of “does a program without any toll gates or roadmaps result in any statistically significant differences compared to a program based on DMAIC or some other roadmap?” And if there were differences, would they be positive or negative? In short, what are we getting for all the time spent on toll gate reviews and roadmap compliance, if anything?
My own view is that there is an infinite variety of improvement opportunities out there, and it’s nonsensical to suggest that any single roadmap will serve a significant portion of them well. Tacit agreement with this view is provided by the flurry of supplemental roadmaps that have appeared (and continue to appear) over the years since DMAIC was first introduced. So the test for the null hypothesis is both simple and audacious: run a Six Sigma program that does not depend on any particular roadmaps and see what happens; teach the tools of Six Sigma without the framework of DMAIC (or any other framework) and evaluate the results; trust practitioners of Six Sigma to decide for themselves how projects should be managed, when meetings should happen, what stages are appropriate for a project. In short, let go of structure and embrace flexibility.
As organizations turn more and more to innovation as a wellspring for continuous improvement, what we ought to be creating is not wave after wave of people who can follow roadmaps well, but rather creative map-makers who can and do chart new paths to any destination. To do that, we need to explore Six Sigma beyond DMAIC.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:16:28 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Developing a Thriving Team from Many Skills]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/developing_a_thriving_team_from_many_skills.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Since my staff in my department is entirely composed of students I have many advantages and disadvantages when creating teams and working on projects.  The advantages of a student staff include the high turnover rates and those who see their time with us as just another job to kill time and get a paycheck.
Some of the advantages are that, as a collective whole, are like a coat of many colors.  They are from different majors (i.e., business, computer science, mathematics, etc.) and are at various educational levels from freshman to graduate student.  This coupled with a desire to learn real-world skills and to do something that looks good on their resume gives them an advantage that other teams may not possess. 
Another aspect of our team was the size.  Since we have a mere seven to ten people on average that left me to wear many hats…from champion to master black belt.  This also left me with the ability to have a green belt, since I couldn’t devote anyone entirely to Six Sigma in our department.  
The choice of green belt came about in two ways.  First was to ask who had interest in that position.  This cut the number of choices by more than half.  Then I had to look at who had the best background and classes in statistical training, computers and project management. That helped narrow the number down again to my best choice, a junior business major with an emphasis in economics and computer science.   
The remainder of the staff would be training in what Six Sigma was, why we were doing this in our department, what it looked like, and how it was linked to compensation for them. Their training would be less intense than in our pilot semester but they would begin to actually see a project in action so many things would become clearer to them.
At this point this new team structure went into place but how would it become a thread in our department, especially in our hiring of replacement employees?  The first thing I did was placed Six Sigma, as it looked at that time, in our new strategic plan.  This way I could plan for it and monitor progress easier.  The second thing I did was develop a small community of practice where knowledge could be shared and captured so that what we were learning wasn’t lost the next year.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Lisa Moore]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:02:22 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Unexpected Application of Lean Six Sigma Tools in Daily Operational Activities]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/unexpected_application_of_lean_six_sigma_tools_in_daily_operational_activities.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sometimes operational people from my organisation approach me with “the” 1000-Euro-question: “Six Sigma guy, can you please help me analyze this set of data.”  Asking me to help, they usually have an issue they really can’t resolve themselves. Perceiving Lean Six Sigma too far away from daily operations they turn in despair to the Six Sigma guy, hoping he can help and his expensive training program can be justified after all… 
My standard answer is (of course, because I want to prove Lean Six Sigma is beneficial for daily operations) “Sure, let’s sit down for 10 minutes and discuss your question”.   Sometimes, I find there is no clearly defined purpose for the data analysis, or there is no clear answer to the simple, but fundamental question “What do you want the data to tell you?” In such case, Six Sigma guy can’t help either…
Luckily, many times, the purpose is clear, or the situation described above can be cleared out asking the 5 why questions. Then it sometimes astonishes what results you can get using simple tools as Pareto charts, histograms, run charts, box plots and/or scatter plots. 
Last week I even astonished myself when a manager approached me to help him organize price quote data from multiple subcontractors in such a way that decisions could be made. Each subcontractor quoted unit costs for more then 100 different specific tasks. You can image how that data matrix looked like in Excel… 
Together with the manager, I applied 2 different tools to organize the data and draw conclusions:
1. Box plots. The box plot outliers showed us clearly which quotes were unrealistically high and low. Using the brush function in Minitab, we could deduct that 80% of the high value outliers were caused by one subcontractor. On the low values, we saw a similar phenomenon. 
2. Using the characteristics of the normal distribution. Per task we have 8 data values available. Not all these data sets were normally distributed, but we did the following: calculation of the average x-bar and the standard deviation s. A characteristic of the normal distribution is that 68% of the data is covered by x-bar +/- 1 s. Or, 32% of the data can be found outside these values, meaning 16% at the lower end and 16% at the higher end. Guess what? 99% of the data points in this lower and upper end of the distribution also showed up as outliers in our box plot analysis.
In the past the decision would have been to grant the contract to the cheapest subcontractor without asking further questions. This has lead to quality losses and rework in the past. Today, we’ll invite the cheapest and ask clarification to ensure us of the understanding of our requirements, thus ensuring us of 1st time right quality at the right price. 
And I can assure you, by this unexpected application of simple tools, this manager is now 200% convinced of the value add Lean and Six Sigma tools can bring to the daily business of the organisation!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Sven Saerens]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2006 10:24:01 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Motivation – Buy-In vs Write-Ups]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/motivation__buy_in_vs_write_ups.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After spinning our wheels for the last two months, myself and the other two Continuous Improvement Specialists went out to lunch with the Plant Manager and the Engineering Director, both of whom are very experienced in manufacturing management, and both very well versed in lean manufacturing and continuous improvement methods. What they told us really surprised me.
We talked mainly about how we can motivate the manufacturing techs (our frontline hourly employees) to accept and embrace the continuous improvement initiatives that we push. From my experience at a much more specialized environment at Honeywell my feelings were that we needed to do a better job "selling" the manufacturing techs (MT) the benefits of the CI procedures. I thought that we needed to get their buy in.
What the Plant Manager and Engineering Director said, basically in unison, was a very different outlook.
They both spoke about a historically dysfunctional motivation structure with the MTs.  They both asked us what we thought motivated the MTs... why do they come to work? All three of us immediately blurted out MONEY! We were exactly right, but they mentioned that in no way is the MTs pay tied to their income other than the number of hours that it takes them to produce. And in that respect, it is inversely correlated - they make time and a half for every hour over forty per week.  Also, in the past, we have provided monthly free pizza lunches for any cell which met their monthly production goal which is a surprisingly effective way to SPIKE their on the job moral. Thus, the MTs are directly motivated to exactly meet production goals after about 55 hours per week (a point where free time starts to become more valuable to the MTs).
Our two managers went on to explain that while there would be no profit sharing in the near future, one way that we could more effectively motivate the employees to participate in CI efforts (specifically, basic 5S efforts, TPM checks, and QCPC reviews) would be to start writing employees up for not participating.  This, they explained, would tie their efforts to their paycheck - don’t participate, get written up... get written up too many times - either get no raises or get fired out right.
After thinking this over for a week I have decided that there is definitely some validity in this outlook. However, I think in reality it just pushes the need for buy in up the line. If unit managers do not believe in the CI efforts, why would they write up their employees? Luckily I have cost of productivity (or lack there of) numbers ready to go for the discussion with my unit manager. It will be interesting to see if this will provide the needed spark.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Rick Maher]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:00:14 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: To Six Sigma or Not - Let's &quot;Pilot&quot; to Find Out]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/to_six_sigma_or_not_lets_pilot_to_find_out.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Benchmarking results consistently identify examples of Six Sigma success.  Even so, getting "nay-sayers" on board is a continuous challenge.  What do you tell them?
Nayism 22:  In lieu of an enterprise-wide Six Sigma deployment, let’s start with a couple of departments and see how it works.
On the surface, this may seem like a reasonable approach but hidden beneath this "toe in the water" approach, dangers are lurking.  Can it work?   Here’s what I say . . .
You’ve heard it a zillion times. . . The power of Six Sigma is not in working a couple of projects.  It’s derived from the cultural aspect (i.e. changing the way the organization works).  The "pilot" approach has some down side that can drown even the best intentions. 
When leadership decides to "pilot" six sigma in a couple of areas, it sends a very clear message to the organization that the leadership team is not convinced that it will work.  This one decision may be enough to spark a feeding frenzy of negativity among the organization’s "nay-sayers" that can overtake even the best deployment efforts.  A successful Six Sigma deployment requires that leadership be passionate about Six Sigma and continuous improvement and and that they relay this passion through their actions.   A "pilot" deployment does not relay passion but sends a clear "caution" message.
Partial deployment can be very tricky.  Once a couple of groups are selected for the pilot, these groups will need to be trained.  But training the pilot group is not enough.  Other departments will require training.  For example, HR (to define Black Belt and Project Champion roles and select the right black belts), Finance (to develop a financial validation methodology), IT (to understand data gathering methods).  Also, as team members are selected, it becomes evident that process customers and suppliers need to be involved.  Data and input may also be needed from ’other’ groups which may or may not have had Six Sigma training or orientation.  At this point, it becomes clear that success will depend on many groups, not just a few that are being piloted.   Without proper deployment in these groups (training and communication) the opportunity for buy-in and support greatly diminishes.
These are just a couple of issues related to "pilot" deployments.  This does not mean that "pilot" deployments won’t work, as I’m sure some have.  It does stress the importance of having a carefully orchestrated plan in place to address issues that may not be present with an enterprise-wide approach.  Six Sigma deployment is serious stuff.   Whether done correctly or incorrectly, it will have a lasting effect on the organization. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 04 Mar 2006 06:37:19 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: A Slow Start...]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/a_slow_start.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Six Sigma started in our department slowly.  There were many factors that played into this, but mostly staffing issues:
1. I only have a staff of student employees (from 8-16 per year).2. This staff is in a constant state of change.3. Students come with various skills, many with no math or business or technical background.4. Knowledge transfer/capture had to be a major component of our setup.
At the onset I was lucky to be the only upper level individual who had to champion this idea and support it.  With that out of the way, I was on a quest to find a couple of student employees who not only possessed skills to help support our effort, but also a drive to do this since it went well beyond what any of them were hired to do.
At the time I had a strong set of level two techs who fit the bill so I enlisted their help.  They were both curious and anxious to work on this.  I had communicated what I wanted to do, why it was necessary, and what the benefits would be and they agreed. 
The first step was to train everyone.  This training would get them up to speed but would also become a test on how to train others that would follow.
Our university has a Blackboard system and I saw it as a perfect place for this training to occur. Blackboard is a web-based teaching/learning system which supports online documents, bulletin boards, tests, etc.  They could learn whenever it was good for them...it was perfect!  I developed the initial online site and began publishing documents/bulletin boards/quizzes and they jumped in and started learning.  As we moved along their feedback was invaluable to me on what worked and concepts that should be broken down more.
Once we had a good basic training program developed we began looking at these employees skills and I realized that I had a vast knowledgebase at my finger tips and that the iron was hot to start training others.  Until people could grasp some basic understanding about what we were about to accomplish how could they back this and help?
The remainder of my student employees began this online course and all finished by the end of the school year.
Great.  I had 8 people who had taken this basic training.  Two would not return the next year and I had three new people to train that next fall.   ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Lisa Moore]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:48:10 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Incentives: Yeah or Nay?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_incentives_yeah_or_nay.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Benchmarking results consistently identify examples of Six Sigma success. Even so, getting "nay-sayers" on board is a continuous challenge. What do you tell them?
Nayism 20: Why are black belts getting monetary rewards?  The rest of us are working just as hard.  Why should they be treated "special"?
The topic of monetary incentives and rewards is highly debated.  Arguments on behalf of both sides can have merit.  So what’s the answer?   Here’s what I say . . .
The decision on whether to use monetary incentives to reward BBs, champions, teams, etc., is not a "one size fits all" answer.   It has been proven that incentives can drive behavior.  Many companies offer bonus and incentive programs that reward employees for meeting operational goals or profit targets.  When all employees get rewarded, it seems to be generally positive.  Issues arise when a certain group of employees (such as BBs) are rewarded above and beyond the rest of the organization.
The decision to use incentives should be based on the need to use them.  In a perfect deployment where some of the "best and brightest" are picked for the BB role and their "term" as a BB is viewed as a career enhancer, the effects of monetary incentives are minimal. These folks are being driven by another incentive  . . . career growth.   If on the other hand, the top leadership is luke warm about the "whole six sigma thing", champions are not as engaged as needed and/or top performers view the BB role as a potential career risk, properly designed monetary incentives for BBs, teams, champions, etc. may help drive the behavior change that’s needed to prove that six sigma can and does work.
Cultures that tend to reward everyone alike, regardless of performance or contribution, are more likely to scoff at BB incentives because it doesn’t fit the norm.  In this case, anything that is done ’extra’ for a BB or their team may spark push-back.  If your culture really needs incentives to help change behaviors that will drive Six Sigma success, you should take this spark and use it to ignite a whole new way of thinking.  After all, being a good change agent is what Six Sigma is all about!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:24:24 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Maine Department of Labor Lean Initiative]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/maine_department_of_labor_lean_initiative.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Applying the Principles of Lean and Public Value to Reshape a Government Agency
In the fall of 2003, the Maine Department of Labor began a tailored change initiative to fundamentally alter the culture and work of the agency.  Combining time-tested “lean” principles from the manufacturing sector with the emerging public sector strategy of “public value,”*  the Department of Labor is improving the quality and efficiency of the services we provide, and doing so with less money.
Like many state agencies, the Maine Department of Labor faces flat or reduced funding streams at a time of steady increases in operations costs. The term “Bend the Curve” relates to the effort to alter the direction of charted projections, to eliminate a looming $9 million shortfall.
The term “public value”*  refers to an emerging public sector strategy to assess the value of government services, products, and regulations to the constituency served by each. Value can be determined only when a constituency “is willing to give up something in return for it.”

* Kelly, Mulgan and Muers, Creating Public Value: an analytical framework for public service reform, see  http://www.annual-report.gov.uk/files/pdf/public_value2.pdf
MDOL - Bend the Curve Goals

Provide the same or better customer service;
Shift the work of the department to match customer expectations and needs;
Achieve efficiencies by fundamentally changing how work gets done;
Improve intradepartmental collaboration and service integration; and
Decrease expenditures by at least $9M and significantly reduce staffing levels over three years while minimizing layoffs.
Better Customer ServiceBend the Curve also addresses the need to continue to provide public value in the services delivered by the department. With a focus on improved processes, measured outcomes, and service delivery from the perspective of the customer, BTC is changing the way we think about our work.
An Investment in LeadershipRecognizing the importance of empowering staff at all levels of the organization to work collaboratively in the change process, the department is investing in the leadership skills of both management and front-line staff.
Continuous ImprovementUsing formal continuous improvement tools, BTC teams address efficiency in service delivery by measuring the current state and planning and implementing a future state that eliminates waste and enhances services to the customer.
For more information about the Maine Department of Labor’s Lean Initiative see their website: http://www.maine.gov/labor/bendthecurve/index.shtml
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Leadership&nbsp;,&nbsp;Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:35:39 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma Salary Reality Check]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/six_sigma_salary_reality_check.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It’s that time of the year again. The time of year when we all do a reality check on the job market -- or more specifically -- on the salaries of Six Sigma Black Belts, Master Black Belts, Champions and Deployment Leaders. With now being the time of year when yearly bonus checks are being distributed around corporate America, it’s the perfect time to figure out if you should be looking for your next challenge within, or outside of, your current organization.
This year’s iSixSigma Global Six Sigma Salary Survey features the largest quantity of Six Sigma practitioners ever recorded. But the salary survey can only be found in the March/April 2006 issue of iSixSigma Magazine, so be sure to either sign up or request a free trial issue.
And this year we finally settled the question plaguing tens of thousands of aspiring Six Sigma Black Belts around the world: Does Six Sigma certification make an appreciable difference in your salary? We added a couple of fields to our data collection process, and now we can determine what type of certification respondents have, as well as who granted the certification (a company like GE or Motorola, a Six Sigma consulting company, ASQ, etc.).]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Cyger]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Management]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:34:10 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: CPOE: Six Sigma for Healthcare?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/cpoe_six_sigma_for_healthcare.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Today I learned about a new program that’s being used in healthcare organizations. It gives me great hope that something significant is on the horizon. It’s called Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) and the many healthcare professionals that read this site probably know about it already -- but I’ll share what I learned for the benefit of everyone else.
CPOE is a computer application that allows physicians to enter orders for patient prescriptions and tests, rather than on paper (usually in illegible writing). This alone would amount to nothing more than simple workflow automation, but CPOE goes well beyond replacing paper orders with electronic ones. It has many features that a seasoned Lean or Six Sigma practitioner would be pleased to hear about.
By comparing 