iSixSigma Homepage
Blogosphere Homepage
iSixSigma Live!
iSixSigma Publications

Free Weekly Newsletter


Your Privacy Matters
Newsletter Archives



BLOGGERS
 
Gary P. Cox [126]  RSS  Gary P. Cox's Biography
Gianna Clark [100]  RSS  Gianna Clark's Biography
Sue Kozlowski [100]  RSS  Sue Kozlowski's Biography
Michael Cyger [86]  RSS  Michael Cyger's Biography
Robin Barnwell [68]  RSS  Robin Barnwell's Biography
Andrew Downard [42]  RSS  Andrew Downard's Biography
Stephen C. Crate [30]  RSS  Stephen C. Crate's Biography
Holly Hawkins [24]  RSS  Holly Hawkins's Biography
Kosta Chingas [23]  RSS  Kosta Chingas's Biography
Laura Gibbons [15]  RSS  Laura Gibbons's Biography
Charles McKinney [14]  RSS  Charles McKinney's Biography
J P Spencer [13]  RSS  J P Spencer's Biography
James Considine [13]  RSS  James Considine's Biography
Jessica Harper [12]  RSS  Jessica Harper's Biography
Vincent Chin [11]  RSS  Vincent Chin's Biography


CATEGORIES
 
Book Review [5]  RSS
Buzz/Press [78]  RSS
Conferences [88]  RSS
General [350]  RSS
Government [24]  RSS
Guest Blog [12]  RSS
History [12]  RSS
Innovation [26]  RSS
Leadership [173]  RSS
Lean [52]  RSS
Management [186]  RSS
Methodology [170]  RSS
Military [10]  RSS
Podcasts [9]  RSS
Research [32]  RSS
The Cox-Box [126]  RSS


RECENT ENTRIES RSS
 
The Psychology of Awards by Jessica Harper
Trick or Treat by Gary P. Cox
Waiting for W.O.W.? by Gianna Clark
TRIZ with Ellen Domb by Michael Marx
The Ultimate Organization? by Kosta Chingas
With Thanks by Sue Kozlowski


LATEST COMMENTS
 
TRIZ with Ellen Domb
by : gucci shoes
Six Sigma Discrimination
by : links of london
 


CTQ MEDIA BLOGS
 
Sourcingmag Blogosphere

BPM Enterprise Blogosphere

RealInnovation Commentary
 


SIX SIGMA BLOGS
 
MoreSteam Lean Six Sigma Blog

Monte Carlo, Lean Six Sigma & DFSS

The Data Heads

Today's Six Sigma

Lean Six Sigma Academy

Leadership & Business

Keith Bower Podcasts
 


LEAN BLOGS
 
Lean Blog

Got Boondoggle?

Evolving Excellence

Reforming Project Management

Learning About Lean
 


BUSINESS BLOGS
 
shmula

Seth Godin's Blog

Decker Marketing

Guy Kawasaki

Fast Company Now
 


BLOG ARCHIVE RSS
 



RETIRED BLOGGERS
 
Zakir Ahamed

Gary Cone

Brian Costello

Capt. Harris

Andrew Hillig

Rick Maher

W. Michael McBride

Lisa Moore

Sven Saerens
 


6s Projects and Presentations
Immediately purchase and download Six Sigma project examples, research and training tools.
store.isixsigma.com
 

6s Recruiting
We can help you staff your org, in weeks! Call us at 847-919-0922 x8857 to get started.
jobs.isixsigma.com/
 


27 April 2008 by Andrew Downard
Printable version  |  Email to a friend

The Consultant Within

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.

Save, Share & Recommend This Blog
Digg It Digg It Del.icio.us Del.icio.us Reddit Reddit Google Google

Yahoo! Yahoo

StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
General , Leadership , Management
posted by Andrew Downard  at  10:01 PM ET | comments [8]


BLOG COMMENT

posted by  Stephen C. Crate  [ http://maine.gov/labor/bendthecurve/about.html ] 28 April 2008 at 3:38 PM ET
Andrew:

This is exactly what the State of Maine did. Instead of hiring a bunch of consultants to come in and facilitate one or two Value Stream Maps then leave, our management trained about 20 continuous improvement professionals who volunteered for the training in addition to their current jobs and now can facilitate projects within state government.

The project called "Bend the Curve" has another training for 12 more. We now have an internal team that can be directed to a problem area, complete a map and make immediate recommendations to Management on what steps can be taken to reduce waste.

There is still some internal cost transferred but not nearly what it would cost to bring in a set of consultants. This keeps some continuity in operations. This is a great idea that may give rise to concern from outside consultants but in the end it is much better for the bottom line of the company.
 


posted by  Andrew Downard 28 April 2008 at 8:48 PM ET
Stephen,

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your experience, and think that the situation can be even more beneficial if you already have people "hanging around" your organization who have been trained or otherwise gained useful experience elsewhere. The trick is to set up the program to identify and leverage those folks. Regardless of where you find them - through your own training program or as a side-benefit of churn - making use of their expertise in the context of a cohesive larger program is easier to talk about than accomplish. But the rewards and savings make it worthwhile.

Thanks again,

Andrew.
 


posted by  Stephen C. Crate 29 April 2008 at 3:56 AM ET
Identifying those folks should be a function of the human resource department. A well run HR should know the talents of every employee and when management says they need something HR should look within first. Good HR management should have some database of employees to query all employees by skill sets. Accounting functions do this well. HR understands this but most organizations do not give enough resources to HR to achieve this up to a practical standard. A simple survey of all employees identifying skill sets, set up in an Oracle or Access database could achieve this easily. A wonderful idea, but implementation must have top management support.

Steve
 


posted by  Ian King 29 April 2008 at 7:07 AM ET
I liked this article. Unfortunately my company has embarked on a Six SIgma program but then ignores the internally trained people when it comes to large projects. They go for the McKinsey or Accenture option and use the internal people as gofers on the project. One day the thinking may change!
 


posted by  Andrew Downard 29 April 2008 at 7:42 AM ET
Stephen,

I don't disagree. I've also had good success in the past with a simple survey sent out to the entire organization via email. 3-4 questions, less than 30 seconds to complete. This quickly generates a database of who is out there and what skills they have.

If you want to get fancy, you can build some logic into the survey. For example, if folks self-identify as Black Belts, you can have them answer a few more detailed questions...like where they were trained, whether they were certified, what projects they worked on in the past, etc. If not, they don't see those questions. This is easy to do out-of-the-box with various online survey tools.

You don't get responses from everyone, but you do tend to hear from the people who are most interested in getting involved. That turns out to be a nice bit of self-selection. It's not a perfect solution, but it is trivially easy and gives you 90% of what you need to know. Best of all, it works the same and requires the same amount of effort (not much) whether your organization is 30 or 30,000 or 300,000.

Andrew.
 


posted by  Andrew Downard 29 April 2008 at 7:44 AM ET
Ian,

Take comfort in the fact that you are not alone! What you have described is not unusual.

Andrew.
 


posted by  Sue Kozlowski 20 May 2008 at 6:18 AM ET
Andrew, you've described beautifully a phenomenon that I've observed in lots of organizations.

In a sense, it's comforting to know - like becoming aware that you're not the only one with a dysfunctional family - but I am challenged to think how to address the issue, because I see more and more companies with "outsource fever." They will spend far more on external resources than internal, and be happy with a result that they would not accept from employees.

You've raised a great discussion point - thanks for your post.
--Sue K.
 


posted by  Andrew Downard 20 May 2008 at 11:23 AM ET
Hi Sue,

I think a lot of it is driven by metrics, and particularly by headcount. I have seen plenty of organizations where adding a single permanent head is absolutely impossible, but spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to complete the same tasks is relatively easy to arrange. I do understand that taking on permanent employees entaisl risks and hassles not present with consultants risk, and that the cost of salary is only a fraction of the total cost of taking on a new employee. But I do think perhaps the pendulum has swung to an unhealthy place.

As for what to do about it, I certainly don't have all the answers. But I do think a crucial first step is to become organized - find the internal experts, formally identify them, and acknowledge them. Maybe follow up with a gap analysis, stating clearly what is resident in the organization and what is missing. In essence this is measuring something that usually isn't measured. Once you have some data to work with, paths forward become easier to find. And deciding where consultants are truly needed becomes less of a guessing game.

Andrew.
 

ADD COMMENT
(*) indicates required fields
author (*) :
email address :
url :
 
  bold italic underline add hyperlink add email hyperlink centre unorder list order list add image quote
 
comment (*) :

max characters : 2100

characters remaining :
remember me :