<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</title>
		<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/RSS2.asp?action=full</link>
		<description>Six Sigma Blogs at the iSixSigma Blogosphere</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2004-2009 iSixSigma</copyright>
		<managingEditor>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>blogosphere@isixsigma.com</webMaster>
		<generator>iSixSigma Blog 1.0.5</generator>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:44:13 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    	<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: TRIZ with Ellen Domb]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/triz_with_ellen_domb.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Next month (yes, I’m giving you early notice so you can put this in your calendar) TRIZ expert, Ellen Domb, will once again be on air with Steve Wilson of Quality Conversations, discussing practical applications of TRIZ.
Tuesday, Nov. 3rd, 11 AM Pacific. Be there. 
Ellen is also speaking at the iSixSigma Live Summit &amp; Awards in Miami next year. If you are looking for a reason to attend, Ellen’s TRIZ workshop would be reason enough - it’s fantastic. ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:41:40 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Innovation Gone Bad - Here We Go Again]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/innovation_gone_bad_here_we_go_again.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Over the weekend, I happened to stumble upon this news link on Yahoo.
The L.A. Times apparently published a front page advertisement that looked very much like a regular news ad.  Of course upon inspection, the advertisement disclaimer was there.  According to AFP:
"Publisher Eddy Hartenstein told the Times he had decided to run the ad despite protests from the newsroom because he was trying to ensure the newspaper's survival.
'Because of the times that we're in, we have to look at all sorts of different -- and some would say innovative -- new solutions for our advertising clients,' he said."
Here is another example of innovation gone bad in my opinion.  Clearly, revenue has taken a front seat to customer value in this case, with a potential long-term impact to customers and reputation.
 
I'm starting to see a trend here....]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Kosta Chingas]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Thinking the Unthinkable]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/thinking_the_unthinkable.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In our BB training we use the terms Divergent &amp; Convergent thinking during the Improve phase. We cover a raft of brainstorming &amp; lateral thinking techniques to encourage people’s divergent thinking. So please take a few moments to answer this question:

How many uses can you think of for a Brick?
How many did you get? Maybe you got just the one, “build a wall”? Or maybe you freely came-up with half a dozen? We could possibly use brainstorming here; try answering the question as if you were Pablo Picasso. Does that work?
Looking in more detail at this took me to Liam Hudson who devised this simple test to illustrate people’s thinking styles. But what Liam did was look deeper into the way we are educated to be Convergent thinkers.
The school system is based on achievement of exam results. This means being able to understand information and produce Model Answers that most accurately match what the examiner wants to see. Being good at this convergent thinking brings its rewards, recognition and good jobs become available. 
Equally to what degree is divergent thinking encouraged. Starting an exam paper with, "I think the real question to answer here is......" or “I have looked at the course curriculum and believe it should be changed here and here”.
So what is the potential impact of focussing on Convergent thinking without balancing Divergent thinking? To what degree do the most successful people across industry focus on having a sense of imagination to challenge an approach? Who were the people who looked at the risks building in the financial system and saw the consequences?
It seems we should be regularly training and rewarding people for Divergent thinking rather than having as a small part of a BB training they might attend.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:36:21 -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: 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: Hitting Target]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/hitting_target.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Targets appear in all shapes &amp; sizes. Sometimes seen as positive, “we operate a target-driven culture” and sometimes negative, “targets drive the wrong behaviour”. So what is true? Given the sheer diversity of targets, I want to focus on a specific area, daily work targets in a services environment. Let’s look at a scenario.
Imagine an operator works in a services business. Work comes in three types and timing tests show each type can be completed within 20 minutes in most cases. Now imagine the operator being given items of work and being asked to work under two different management controls:

Control 1, Work items are targetted to be completed within 22 minutes. 
Control 2, There are no targets and work items must be completed regardless of the time required
Statistically speaking, an assessment of the two approaches could be made, something like:

Ho = There is no difference between the time taken to complete work items under control 1 or control 2
I am looking at running some tests to see if there is a difference as this is related to a project I am working. But what is your gut feel on the expected performance difference?
I have tried this in a very small trial and found that when working under a time target, you focus on the time target. As the pressure builds on any individual work item because you are watching the clock you find it more difficult to focus on the task in hand and end up missing the target. You lose valuable time because of the target.
So what does this show? Does this describe an example of why targets drive the wrong behaviour? Does it show that getting it right first time saves money? Does this show operator’s pulling work? Does this show a difference between batch and continuous flow?
I’m not sure but I feel I am looking at something quite important here, just not sure exactly what it is yet……..]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:39:06 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Thriving on Chaos]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/thriving_on_chaos.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I used to work in the IT business and we were always on the look-out for the next “big thing” to cash in on. It was things like moving from mainframes to open systems and onto Microsoft Windows, relational databases, business intelligence systems, OLAP reporting and CRM systems. 
So while I was travelling home from Sydney (around 1995) after a weeks consulting, I read about the next big thing, it was called the World Wide Web. This was going to be big, bigger than big. People working in IT should get ready to cash in on this next big growth market. Turns out to have been more than right, but the article didn’t go BIG enough!
And how the world has changed. In the olden days (pre-WWW) my options to get information were limited. Today I can access just about anything directly on my computer. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but working in such an information rich environment does have its challenges.
I sometimes feel a bit overwhelmed by the sheer number of options, methods and approaches I can choose from. There does not seem be a part of human existence that someone hasn’t studied, developed a methodology and written a best selling book. I struggle to know which to believe or which to follow. Every year there are new crops of ways to solving problems, things like Blue Ocean/Red Ocean and Good to Great. So I have come-up with a way to deal with information over-load
I recently went into a second-hand book-shop and couldn’t believe my luck. I managed to buy a first-edition copy of the Tom Peter’s classic Thriving on Chaos for only £1. I don’t think the copy I bought had ever been opened let alone read! What Tom offers is a series of about 40 lessons in management &amp; leadership. 
So here is what I do. Along comes the next radical break-through innovation that will completely change the world, just like the World Wide Web. I thumb through Thriving on Chaos to see how it was done back in 1987. It’s my baseline.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Book Review&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:32:55 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Six Sigma meets IT at McKesson]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/six_sigma_meets_it_at_mckesson.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last Week, Ben Worthen, of The Wall Street Journal, interviewed Randall Spratt, chief information officer at McKesson Corp.  McKesson was one of the pioneer healthcare companies to use Six Sigma, starting in 1999 and still going strong today.  
In the interview Spratt talked about how the use of Six Sigma and technology are making operations more efficient. He first gave the quick Six Sigma spiel and then went on to share an example where a Six Sigma project led to a technology based solution to a warehousing problem: 

WSJ: One technology that McKesson developed is a small computer that warehouse workers wear on their wrists and that is attached to a scanner on the worker's finger. How did you come up with this system and what has it accomplished?
MR. SPRATT: It came from a Six Sigma analysis. Most errors in the warehouse came at the point of picking, which is taking something off a warehouse shelf, associating it with an order, and putting it in the right bin for shipping. The second-highest error rate came from stocking errors. If you stock a drug in the wrong place, the pickers have to search for it and they waste a lot of time. So they sat down and said how can we solve these problems.
This is classic Six Sigma meets Innovation.  Analysis reveals where the problems are and then innovators develop a solution to the problem, Six Sigma makes sure the new innovative system stays in control. And who says Six Sigma and innovation don’t get along? 
The interview is great read for all Six Sigma practitioners, and especially for the healthcare IT professional.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Healthcare&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:08:21 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Looking for Inspiration]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/looking_for_inspiration.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Our Lean Manufacturing program is stepping-up a gear and as part of this we are looking to present the approach to a large audience of about 200 people. And I am looking for some inspiration.
If anyone has a good ice-breaker, simulation, case study or other activity that would take about 30 minutes and engage a large audience then please let me know.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 May 2008 14:49:04 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Innovation and Six Sigma]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/innovation_and_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There has been a lot of ink spilled lately dithering about Six Sigma and Innovation. Most of it by naysayers who feel that Six Sigma is antithetical to Innovation, or zealots who feel some version of the opposite sentiment. For the life of me, I can’t wrap my mind around either position.
To illustrate my view, let’s talk about some other processes you find in most organizations – perhaps budgeting and talent development. Most businesses have at least an annual budgeting process and an annual talent development process. These are fundamental, and exist in most places out of necessity. Clearly the two have links: it takes money to develop and retain talent, and it takes high caliber people to manage all aspects of cashflow and propel the organization forward. Without good talent development there would eventually be no budget to allocate, and without good budgeting all the talent in the world isn’t going to matter after a couple of quarters.
So talent development and budgeting are both necessary for the success of the organization, but neither is sufficient. Hardly an interesting observation, right? Now suppose someone told you that “your budget process is killing your talent development process.” Well, it could be true, and if so you’d have to fix it. But suppose they went on to say that “talent development is much more important, so you should get rid of the budget process.” That’s ridiculous, right? The very idea makes no sense.
But that’s exactly the argument that is made regarding Six Sigma and Innovation. If I had a nickel for every article I’ve read concluding that Six Sigma kills Innovation so we should jettison Six Sigma, well, I’d probably have about a dollar. But you get my point.
There are two things wrong with this conclusion, regardless of how it is reached. The first one is described above. Six Sigma and Innovation are two separate but related processes that must co-exist in a healthy organization. Both are necessary and neither is sufficient for success. Suggesting that one should be pursued to the exclusion of the other is infantile thinking. I don’t care what you call the attendant programs, but new ideas need to be encouraged and developed, and continuous improvement needs to occur. Of course, Six Sigma can’t be the Innovation program either. Organizations that lack an Innovation program and try to make Six Sigma stand in for it are bound to be disappointed. If you have no talent development process, having a great budget process isn’t going to help.
So the first thing wrong with the conclusion that Six Sigma kills Innovation is that it suggests an opposition between the two processes, falsely implying a choice that isn’t there. You don’t get to choose one or the other. Both are necessary. The trick is to make them work together, just like budgeting and talent acquisition.
The second thing wrong with the conclusion is that, properly structured, Six Sigma and Innovation have an intrinsically synergistic relationship, not an antagonistic one. Just like budgeting and talent development do when properly executed. Despite what you may have read, process and structure are not natural enemies of Innovation.  Bad process and inappropriate structure…maybe those are enemies of Innovation, but then they are the enemy of many other things in the organization too. A bad Innovation program will certainly be a drag on your Continuous Improvement program, and vice versa. But as I have pointed out many times before, the conclusion that poorly run programs perform poorly is not useful or interesting.
It has been my experience that well-run Six Sigma programs generate a tidal wave of new insights and ideas. Indeed, managing the flow of those ideas becomes a central, consuming, happy problem for successful programs. This is true even when a very structured approach is taken. I’m reminded of a story I was once told about an author who decided to write an entire novel without using the letter “e”. You’d think this would be incredibly limiting, but in fact the author ended up learning many, many new words and taking his writing in entirely new directions. The structure forced him to break old habits and think in new ways.
A recent New York Times article by Janet Rae-Dupree makes this point in fascinating depth. Here’s a tease:

“So it seems antithetical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks.”
Far from killing it, a well-deployed Six Sigma program (or any structured approach to continuous improvement) can be a great partner to Innovation. The reverse point is also true, that Innovation can help Six Sigma. I’m not going to construct an argument to support my belief that Innovation is a necessary component of Continuous Improvement, as I take it to be true almost by definition.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Andrew Downard]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 22:01:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Total Innovation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/total_innovation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In our business we are passionate about achieving breakthrough innovations and I’d like to share a few examples of how we really push the envelope. Lets start with the fire alarm. It’s seldom used for real but reaches right across the whole campus with a very clear message:

“Emergency, please leave the building by the nearest exit.” 
We tapped into this paradigm to alert our numerous project managers to consistently achieve the weekly status report deadline with a very clear message to instruct people wherever they are:

“Emergency, all project managers submit their status report immediately.” 
Imagine the employee delight we achieved with this regular reminder, a simple but really effective change.
Or how about the “Six Sigma Results Tree” we erected in head-office? Our black belts come and randomly pick a low-hanging fruit (project opportunity) and return when complete with a green-paper leaf for each £100k saved. It goes to prove that money does grow on trees.
What about group dynamics in meetings? We reviewed the Six Thinking Hats methodology and didn’t really understand it. So what did we do? We innovated of course! We took the Six Thinking Hats’ one-dimensional concept (e.g. creativity, optimism &amp; judgement) to the next dimension and applied the Roger Hargreaves’ management methodology. We found the Hargreaves - Mr Men approach provided a much richer set of one-dimensional characters as shown: 

We started strongly with clear insights from Mr Clever and outstanding levels of quality from Mr Perfect. Things started to wobble when we found Mr Quiet hiding in the cupboard and Mr Lazy would never show up for meetings. But we had to call a halt when Mr Tickle took his role too passionately and Little Miss Sunshine made a formal HR complaint! But we did enjoy seeing them run around and around the meeting table, “Here comes Mr Tickle……Tickle Tickle Tickle”.
I could share other groundbreaking innovations but I need maintain confidentiality to retain our truly competitive edge!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:37:34 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lucky Kat Six Sigma for Kids]]></title>
			<link>http://www.sixsigmacompanies.com/archive/lucky_kat_six_sigma_for_kids.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
Lucky Kat Television, in association with Dr. Mikel J. Harry, is launching a Six Sigma for kids program. The online TV network has partnered with several education and entertainment companies to build a fun online learning network for kids.  
Part of the fun will be teaching kids about Six Sigma through Harry’s Six Sigma for Kids program set to debut soon.  Read Dr. Harry’s letter announcing the progress and watch Lucky Kat’s interview with Dr. Harry on Lucky Kat TV. In Dr. Harry’s own words:

“We will learn how to dream the big dream. Think about that big dream. Plan how to realize that big dream, and do the actions that are necessary to bring it into reality.”
This is exciting stuff if I do say so myself.  Teaching our children to think analytically at early ages will make high school, college and managing their careers so much easier.  I’ve signed my kids up to learn Six Sigma from the Lucky Kat.  Check out the classroom at the Katville Academy! (Must register and sign in to explore the island and learn.)

Child Education and Entertainment Meet Lucky Kat, Press release, March 27, 2008]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Michael Marx]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:42:40 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Revisiting Henry Ford]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/revisiting_henry_ford.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have been re-reading Henry Fords book “My Life and Work”. I got the idea to re-read this from Walter Lowell, the Lean Initiative Director at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. It is available as an e-book from The Project Gutenberg.(see below)
In this wonderful book Ford talks about how he developed the horseless carriage. In terms of efficiency and lean use of energy, this was one of the first innovative engineering ideas that contributed to the industrialization of America. We all know the story and how it developed including Henry’s idea of interchangeable parts and, I would argue, one of the first Value Stream Mapping demonstrations of the lean use of people using the manufacturing production line. This led me to thinking about our current manufacturing dilemma in America and how my professional training in job analysis and vocational rehabilitation could begin to create some solutions for our manufacturing industry in America. More importantly my client base everyday is growing with 50 something men and women who only know how to use their hands to make stuff.  They find themselves unemployed or underemployed and worn out from $8.00 dollar an hour service jobs and in dire need of some real work and a livable wage. They have worked in construction and manufacturing and now can’t find anything reasonable to do. 
All political rhetoric aside it is a real problem for many American citizens both disabled and able bodied. How can lean thinking utilized by our government and manufacturing sector begin to solve this problem. What would Henry do?
As I read Henry’s book I looked for inspiration to combine all this evolving knowledge I have recently gained with the problem of our shrinking industrial base and my charge to help individuals with disabilities and related barriers find and maintain gainful employment in an integrated and competitive employment environment. This was the first quote I decided to build upon.
“The Government is a servant and never should be anything but a servant. The moment the people become adjuncts to government, then the law of retribution begins to work, for such a relation is unnatural, and inhuman”. 
I guess that means that if the government is creating useless jobs that do not grow the economy then in the end an unproductive dependency is created. But workforce development programs going back to the Conservation Corp have contributed to our economic development in this country including the development of the interstate system and many other infrastructure projects that support and sustain businesses in our country. 
Lean government proponents would do well to combine value stream mapping and other LSS tools with workforce development programming and provide a boost to our manufacturing sector. What an idea… use Henry’s Fords evolved manufacturing ideas combined with job analysis and employability development models and put our citizens back to work making stuff. What stuff? Stuff that comes from natural resources found in America. This is not entitlement but rather building on our historical strengths. 
Lean thinking is a transformational concept that must remain part of our entrepreneurial and public sector strategic planning. Where’s the muda?
Reference. Ford, Henry – My Life and Work, The Project Gutenberg: Release Date: January, 2005 [EBook #7213] Produced by Marvin Hodges, Tom Allen, Tonya Allen, Eric Eldred, Charles Franks, and the DP Team The Gutenberg Project]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Stephen C. Crate]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:05:11 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: The iPod Did Not Come From a Focus Group]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/the_ipod_did_not_come_from_a_focus_group.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Innovation comes from the producer - not from the customer." - W Edwards Deming
 
In the course of teaching Kano Analysis to green belts and others, I frequently talk about the difficulty in uncovering delighters or excitement needs, as the customer often cannot articulate these at an actionable level. Or in other words, “The iPod didn’t come from a focus group”. (For the real scoop on where it did come from, click here.)
 
While it may be true that no customers conceived of the iPod, or a host of other innovative inventions, it is no longer true that innovation is the sole purview of producers. Take the iPhone as an example – originally designed to work only on one wireless network, it was only a matter of weeks before a team created a way to unlock the iPhone to work on other networks – clearly a desirable feature for customers which Apple decided not to include. yes"> 
 
There is now a variety of websites devoted to various hacks for the iPhone to overcome shortcomings in the original product and software design, or enable entirely new functions. While it’s likely that customers who would be interested in hacking their iPhones represent a small subset of Apple’s customer base, this is a highly innovative group. 
 
Will Apple take advantage of these efforts? After all, what better way to build future releases with killer features than to allow your customers to run wild and create them on their own? Time will tell. It is intriguing that despite being one of the most innovative companies in the world, Apple’s customers can still find ways to better Apple’s products. 
 
Your company probably knows more about what is possible than most of your customers; but the lesson I take away from the Apple example is this: some of our customers know a lot more than we do, and we ignore them at our peril.
 
The concept of customer innovation is not exactly new – Harvard Business Review published an article on it in 2002 – but it does seem to be garnering more attention these days. But how many firms are still relying on the “tried and true” methods of developing products, or worse, adopting a “we know best” position and internally designing products and services with little to no input from actual customers? 
 
I think Deming said it best in this line: “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.”]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[James Considine]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 06:00:00 -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 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: How to approach Improve]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/how_to_approach_improve.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The very first Six Sigma book I read was “The Six Sigma Way”. The first page describes the story of a CEO jumping to solutions and being educated by a Black Belt on the methodology. He is turned around and states, “We’re not in the ‘Just Do It’ mode anymore”. My take-away being, we take a disciplined and structured approach we improve the right things in the right way.
The lack of an official “Six Sigma” can mean different versions being taught. Overall I think there is broad agreement on the approaches and tools we use in Define, Measure &amp; Analyse. Of course, the setting drives the specific tools we use (see What Flavour Are You). But if you are looking for variation take a look at Improve. 
Over the years I have been using the ASQ Black Belt body of knowledge as the basis for my continual learning, working through subjects in my own time to ensure I really understand them. I have got to Improve and there is a problem. Now the approach I was taught and deliver to our Green &amp; Black Belts is to:

Use creative thinking to develop a long-list of potential solutions
Use convergent thinking to develop the optimal solution
Establish and mitigate risks
Run pilots and DoE to establish and prove solution achieves goal
Develop implementation plan ready for toll gate
Reading through my now wide collection of books this is quite an orthodox approach with two exceptions. Firstly, the ASQ BoK I use describes Improve as below.

Design of experiments
Response surface methodology
Evolutionary operations
I checked and the newest version now introduces Implementation Planning, Risk Analysis and the Lean concepts of Waste, TOC &amp; Kaizen. Secondly my copy of  “Implementing Six Sigma” covers:

Design of experiments
Response surface methodology
Evolutionary operations
My guess is that the people who developed the ASQ BoK and “Implementing Six Sigma” must have collaborated and describe an Improve phase that is different to a number of other authors. There is no mention of the creative processes:- divergent thinking, six thinking hats, brain writing, or lateral thinking. 
As a practitioner what it means to me is I learn both and decide which to apply and when.  I am also updating my copy of the ASQ BoK to the latest version.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology&nbsp;,&nbsp;Research]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:50:26 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Innovation on Tap]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/innovation_on_tap.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
Innovative solutions are frequently the answer to new or age old problems.  But what kind of tools can help you and your team get out-of-the -box?   Seems like way back when, we didn’t spend enough time in training talking about innovation in the "Improve" stage.   Armed with the 5 S’s, a DOE and some poka-yoke, we’d trudge on to find the much wanted answer without ever really stopping to think about driving innovation into our thought process.   This probably occurred because once we found an answer that seemed to work, we sometimes stopped looking for other options.   
A great tool that can keep us on our toes is the morphological box.   The morph box helps you divide a solution into various parts and then mix and match the alternatives to sometimes create a whole new solution - one that you may not have initially thought of if you had stopped looking after identifying the first one.  The 2007 July/August Issue of iSixSigma Magazine had a nice description of the morph box in the "Tool Spotlight" section.  Putting the tool in practice while focusing on innovative solutions can help drive your team to find not just an answer but a better and sometimes more innovative answer. 
The whole process of using the morph box reminds me of my kids at the restaurant soda dispenser.  A little bit of this and a little bit of that and it’s like they have invented a new drink.  So next time you need to quench your thirst for a new and different answer, try using the morph box.  It might be the most refreshing thing you’ve tried in years!]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Methodology]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:07:35 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Eco-efficiency at the server farm]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/eco_efficiency_at_the_server_farm.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In his Rough Type blog, Nicholas Carr -- contrarian author of the book, Does IT Matter? -- comments on Microsoft's plans to build a data center in Siberia and upcoming completion of the world's largest data center in Chicago.  Construction of these facilities costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and each will hold tends of thousands of servers.  Microsoft's Chicago data center will employ only 35 to 50 people.  Apparently, climate in Chicago and Siberia were prominent in these sites being selected because their colder weather makes it cheaper to cool the data center equipment.  Large server farms built for environmental efficiency and staffed by just a few people -- is green physical and virtual platform design a new frontier for Design for Six Sigma?  Microsoft is a big proponent of Lean Six Sigma.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation&nbsp;,&nbsp;Lean]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:25:08 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: 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: When Variation is Your Friend]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/when_variation_is_your_friend.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[
Isn’t it ironic that what might actually be needed to address variation in your process is variation in your team?
Picking the right team members is almost as important as picking the right project.  In addition to an expert, a customer and representatives from other key stakeholder groups, you should think about how you can "mix it up a bit" by selecting some team members that can bring a fresh look to things.  Sometimes a newer employee or someone not directly involved with the process can fill this role.   Their view and perspective may keep the team from developing a "group think" mentality by asking "why" to the "always done that way" aspects of a process.  Their lack of emotional attachment to the existing process and their distance from inner-group politics sometimes provide them with the courage to bring up the unspeakable, approach the untouchable and refuse to pay homage to the sacred cows.  And yes, these differences may create some disagreements and team challenges.  An experienced team leader will be needed to help the team capitalize on these differences in a way that brings positive energy to the team.   
Different people with different backgrounds and different viewpoints may be just the thing you need to find a different solution to an age old problem.  ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Gianna Clark]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Elevating the Strategic Relevance of Process Excellence]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/elevating_the_strategic_relevance_of_process_excellence.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like many companies in the Fortune 1000, we are planning 2008. At leadership meetings, around conference room tables and in hallway conversations, we are asking big questions: What will our industry look like? How will external trends affect us? How should our business model change? What capabilities do we need? Do we have them? What level of cost savings will boost our stock price?
These conversations can create organizational angst: senior executives worrying about tenure, middle managers fearing loss of their jobs or attrition of star performers, and analysts feeling the effects of declining morale. Alternatively, they can create optimism: drive to succeed at all levels, commitment to company success and drive for big bonuses. Reality is often somewhere in between—a mix of pessimism, optimism and indifference. We fall into the “somewhere in between” crowd.
Deploying Lean or Six Sigma in an organization with strategic ambiguity is no easy task, especially if the Process Excellence Organization has not cemented leadership advocacy (a key success factor for adoption), demonstrated value, and achieved the cultural stickiness that Lean and Six Sigma enjoy at mature, self-optimizing companies. Self-defeating Six Sigma organizations wait for the next round of strategic priorities to be dictated, so they can update their deployment plans and complete new waves of projects. Self-directing Process Excellence Organizations inform strategic debate and shape their utilization—positioning their sponsors (or executives who will become their sponsors) and companies to achieve payback multiples (benefits of Lean and Six Sigma divided by the costs of deployment) greater than 10:1.
Having worked on transformation initiatives and in a champion role, my views of what differentiates effective from run-of-the-mill Process Excellence Organizations are evolving. Analytical rigor, methodological purity and quantitative exactness differentiate process improvement professionals, but critical thinking about strategy, marketing prowess inside a company and a pipeline to talent will set up Process Excellence Organizations to succeed. 
With strategic planning in full force, here is the first part of a series to help Process Excellence Organizations think about improving their value and odds of success.  Excellence is a process.  Executives might think Lean and Six Sigma professionals manage their own activities as a process-centric enterprise within an enterprise. My own experience suggests that we spend so much time improving company processes that management of our own process—deploying Lean and Six Sigma to improve performance (i.e., quality, efficiency, service innovation, customer satisfaction, shareholder value)—does not achieve the right level of maturity. And so a vicious cycle emerges: we work on the wrong projects; deployment does not produce big bangs; executives lose patience; we redeploy, reorient or disappear; companies embark on new quality journeys after forgetting pains of the past.
The hallmark of mature Process Excellence Organizations is their flexibility. A few years ago, a colleague at a well-known consultancy highlighted how Six Sigma can be inflexible. A client engaged his firm to recommend cost reductions. The engagement team identified redundant computer software. Wanting to achieve a quick win, a procurement executive announced retirement of the software in 45 days, unless business lines could justify the cost of redundant licenses and products. A few users complained, but the executive canceled the licenses. My colleague overheard a skeptical Black Belt comment that the executive made a quick decision and should have completed a DMAIC project to understand the true benefits and ensure canceling the licenses would not disrupt business processes. DMAIC projects at the client took 3-6 months. The analysis to identify the redundant software took 2-3 days. The procurement executive determined in a meeting that canceling the software would not have significant effects (besides whining by people who would have to begin using another, comparable product). The savings from the decision were over $1 million per year. The Black Belt showed a lack of flexibility. 
If my comments about flexibility seem insensitive to the rigor of Lean and Six Sigma, ask a personal question: Would you rather save enough money to retire over 10 years or 30?  CEOs are motivated by returns, and organizations that can grow the top line, shrink expenses and improve the bottom line the fastest enjoy the most credibility.  
Methodological and analytical rigor is a prerequisite for any Lean or Six Sigma effort to succeed. Taking a broader perspective, mature Process Excellence Organizations enjoy or achieve credibility and success by executing a flexible performance-improvement process—attacking the top priorities, employing the best tools, selecting the right projects and leveraging organizational momentum.  
Mature process excellence organizations address five things.  Over the next several weeks, I will discuss characteristics of mature Process Excellence organizations. They are:
1. Understand and inform strategy setting and implementation2. Create relationships and governance through sales and marketing3. Facilitate identification of the right mix of quick wins and big bangs4. Pull people into process excellence and push knowledge to the business5. Manage the process excellence organization like a consulting business
The five-part series will draw on research, case studies, personal experience and opinions to communicate ideas that Lean and Six Sigma practitioners can evaluate, adopt, reject or deride as whimsy. After a long-term absence from iSixSigma, my goal is to encourage the blog community to raise the strategic relevance of Lean and Six Sigma at their companies.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Change Management&nbsp;,&nbsp;Customer Satisfaction&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;History&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Lean adoption in the housing industry]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/lean_adoption_in_the_housing_industry.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") released recently a study of Lean adoption at nine manufactured housing plants. HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research and the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance were sponsors of the study. The study highlights the benefits of Lean to making production of manufacturing housing more efficient and improving the availability of affordable housing. Details of the study are at www.huduser.org/publications/destech/pilotstudy.html.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Charles McKinney]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Buzz/Press&nbsp;,&nbsp;General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Government&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:58:51 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Open Source Business Intelligence - Outside the scope of Six Sigma?]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/open_source_business_intelligence_outside_the_scope_of_six_sigma.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As my title would suggest, the concepts of business intelligence and Six Sigma seem to be revolve around each other according to most practioners, rather than intersect, like I believe. Gone are the days (or should be) where the applications and business processes are distinct, individual units operating outside the realm of process improvement projects. Wait, back up -- If SOA, or Service Oriented Architecture, is by textbook defined as the 'archtectural retooling of software that allows for the exploitation of open standards that have been adopted by software companies (page 6, ICMI Call Center Magazine, June 2007).' Woah - What?
In other words, SOA allows various silo'ed business processes to work together through the use of the middleware concept that presents the end-user with a standard user interface, but allows the same end user the power to custom-configure these applications based on their own unique needs. Think of a Chinese restaurant menu's family dinner, where you can mix and match from a variety of delicacies in order to create the most perfect family meal for you and your party. Likewise, Service Oriented Architecture does the same, except you are creating your most perfect picture of your business through the use of intelligence, reporting, scorecarding / dashboarding (also known as Enterprise Performance Management). 
What is the key though to the intersection and why am I writing about this in a six sigma online community forum? Think of all of the disparate business processes that we work on everyday, and think of all of the projects you have worked on in which you a) had to fight to prove your benefits saved with finance (especially if your company allows soft benefits), b) needing to produce reports as a means of delivering numbers to the process owner and champion on the success of your outputs as defined by your control plan over time, c) needed to validate whether your project even warranted a black or green belts time by leveraging business repots to do so or d) like myself, just have a keen love for the colors or red, yellow and green when used to measure the health of the business. 
Ok, I suspect there are fewer of us in the D category, but I may be wrong - My hypothesis is that most of you out there fall into a, b or c or a combination of such characters depending on your business. I am also assuming that you have some type of underlying database structures before you launch six sigma in general, otherwise, I might pull my project in lieu of working on setting up an enterprise data warehouse, but that is a whole other can of worms for another blog, for another day. I diverge... And now we are back...
If any of the options above describe you, then you are in need or wanting business intelligence. And, since my example was scoped to helping you establish your project or report on the success of a project, I suspect you see the analogy I am trying to make when I say there is an intersection between business intelligence and six sigma. In any effort to create consistency or less variation, which is a tenant of the DMAIC methodology, one should gravitate towards the learnings of SOA for BI -- either as a poke yoke or SPC/SPM vehicle, a savings validation or a time / project management tracker; subject matter doesn't matter - what does is an implicit understanding in the principles at large. It is no longer limited to just IT; it is all of our responsibility.
 ]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Laura Gibbons]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:29:15 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Six Sigma Blogs: Innovation]]></title>
			<link>http://blogs.isixsigma.com/archive/innovation.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have struggled for sometime to appreciate the relationships between Lean Six Sigma and Innovation. Part of this is because I have never really given it much thought and also a couple of things worry me. I think I need to cover what this baggage is before talking about how I think they the two relate. But it’s a huge subject; I suspect the latest thinking is far beyond where I have got to so far.
My first concern is the incredible ability of people to innovate. Did Einstein have a secret black belt? Was Leonardo DaVinci an MBB? People are going to innovate regardless of Lean Six Sigma. Innovation happens in all industries from advertising to engineering and there are countless examples such as:

Henry Bessemer’s innovative development of the first inexpensive process for the mass production of steel 
Thomas Edison’s innovative development of commercial light bulbs from Humphry Davy’s initial invention 
Jethro Tull’s agricultural innovation of the seed drill for sowing seeds instead of being cast upon the ground.
My second concern is that I believe innovation is a very personal endeavour rather than a group endeavour. What I have seen a number of times is innovation happening like a spark, suddenly someone gets it, they have a startling flash of insight and the innovation occurs. The innovation may well happen in a group setting (e.g. brainstorm) but its still up to the individual.
Accepting the arguments that people are naturally innovative and innovation is essentially a personal endeavour where is the relationship with a team-based continuous improvement methodology? 
It would seem that Lean Six Sigma creates the conditions for targeted (customer, product &amp; process) innovation in three ways.

1. MethodologyInnovation is baked into the DMAIC approach; there is even a stage for it. So LSS starts by creating the conditions for innovation.
2. ToolsWe have a wide range of tools to support innovation. I suspect there are a number we do not use, but it’s just a matter of research to get a comprehensive list.
3. JourneyWe are on a continuous improvement journey. So each time we push the target, from 5 days to 5 hours, from 85% to 99%, from customer satisfied to customer promoter we have to innovate, there is no other option.
There are numerous other approaches, methodologies and tools you could use, but it seems LSS is built to order.]]></description>
			
			<author><![CDATA[Robin Barnwell]]></author>
			
			<category>
			<![CDATA[General&nbsp;,&nbsp;Innovation]]>
			</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:00:50 -0800</pubDate>
		</item>

	</channel>
</rss>
