As big as the Army is, the opportunities for improvement abound. However, the tolerance for improvement projects (particularly long drawn out ones) is very low. Any thing that takes more than 90 days to complete is considered a waste of time. Or worse you get called an "oxygen thief."

What I have found is that one of the best ways to overcome this is to leverage projects completed and replicate them as Rapid Improvement Events. People get excited if they know a problem can be fixed in a few days. I feel that it is largely psychological as the real work is in controlling the process not fixing it.

To date, over 1000 BB and GB projects have been completed. This is a huge platform to link problems to solutions and drive towards critical mass.

If you subscribe to iSixSigma magazine, please read the feature about how we used LSS to improve our Supply Requisition Process.

The article is on page 22. Enjoy.

For the Army deployment, this is " the year of production." We are in full swing of BB and GB training plus project completion for certification. The work in progress is pretty high. We have a full pipeline of newly trained belts itching to do projects. But with a constraint to complete x number by the end of the year, do we accept lower project rigor in order to finish? Then increase the rigor as we go along? Or do we ensure belts really understand how to go from "soup to nuts" on a project before releasing them into the wild?

Surely project mentoring is a huge part of the equation, but will we end up mentoring more once they are done or less? What is the right mix?

I recently received an e-mail from another Command that outlined a program of LSS projects regarding the Army Reserves Family Support Group. The Family Support Group is essential a booster organization that supports military families during deployments and other activities that make their loved one absent. They provide resources such as Red Cross Assistance, small household goods and the like. As part of our initial project sponsor workshop, we identified opportunities for improvement with the Family Support Group within the 335th Command. We assigned an initial project regarding the management of the database that houses contact information. We are looking to improve a couple of items: the cycle time to input data into the portal and reducing the number of discrepancies in the database that causes mail to be returned or prevent us from contacting a family member by phone.

The adjacent Command outlined a similar project regarding contact information on the Family Readiness database. I found it quite interesting and proceeded to talk with our Family Programs Coordinator who was somewhat surprised. I think so too given that we operate off of Power steering to give visibility to all projects. I then contacted the Coordinator of the database project who exclaimed this is the first time he heard of it also. We both agreed to begin steps to work in this jointly.

The bottom line is that with such a huge organization sharing similar problems, yet attacking them disjointly dilutes the potential for effective and innovative solutions. As we journey through this, I am hopeful that we can establish a more robust Enterprise level project communication system to facilitate the synergy needed to build the critical mass we are seeking to develop.

Tollgate reviews can be a real source of anxiety for belts of all colors and levels. For the Army, a tollgate is like a phase-line on the Battlefield. It allows leaders to know where you are in relation to everything else. Go past it without permission or authority and there may be some repercussions. With projects, the same exists. A belt is attacking a leaders enemy of success.

The paradigm shift that will enable future success with LSS is in allowing belts to explore and discover what exists in the process and what could be the process. Currently, projects are threatened by scope creep but limited by the inability to follow the "inch wide, mile deep", philosophy of analysis.

As we journey down this path of improvement, key success factor will be the opening up of data to the internal customers who are trying to make a difference for their fellow soldiers and their country.

Most methodologies warn against the use of part time resources as project leaders. This is more so true with Blackbelts. However, the Army has a unique situation with the Army Reserves. These are true full time members who serve up to a total of 38 days per year. Couple that with the fact that most if not all are being pulled in other directions on other mission essential tasks, and their availability becomes even less so.

We currently have 1 Blackbelt and 2 Greenbelt candidates who fit these roles. A strategy we are looking at is having those memebers/candidates report for active duty to complete the critical pieces of the project.

One of the most recent moves to engage the leadership in Business Transformation is to have the Project Sponsors brief/present BB/GB projects to the Deployment Directors/Senior Leadership. The strategy is a great way to change the old thought process of "kicking the can down the road" or "maintaining the status quo" until the next bloke takes over. This now makes them responsible for ensuring we don’t create problems that blow up in someone elses face. The threat is that a backlogged issue that must be dealt with now could derail another serious issue in the future.

The term "Mission Creep" with the Military can be applied to "Scope Creep" in a LSS Project. The constant tension to solve problems has to be tempered with the fact that many problems are "Elephants" that need to be eaten one bite a time. The issue of Mission/Scope Creep boils down to being able to define what is critical and what is not (CTQ). At a higher level, this may represent a Balanced Scorecard, KPI’s, etc.

Most Army units don’t measure their outputs. However, the Army uses a material weakness report to outline and list what prevents them from accomplishing its mission. By essentially transforming this report to measurable KPI’s, the Army can begin to focus on its; critical processes and prioritze is improvement efforts.

The training and curriculum of Lean Six Sigma is the perfect example of variation in action.
I have the ability to see about 4 different types of curriculum for GB’s and BB’s. In all cases,
each one presents you with a almost totally different perspective of what the trainers want
you to be able to do. Some are more statistically oriented, some on processes and others on tools.

I couldn’t say which one is better or worse, but I think the organization that employs a training program
needs to think about the orientation of the curriculum format. In this sense the organization can ensure
their GB’s or BB’s have a effective transition from class to project.

As is well known by all, the Army exists as a non-profit organization. Our motives and measures of success are not around EPS or net profit. We measure mission accomplishment and effectiveness. Our motto is always, "make it happen" or as the cable guys says, "get ’er done."

However we do measure project success in terms of money:

Type 1- direct expenses or costs not paid or reduced

Type 2- cost avoidance

Type 3- increased capability

As a capital intensive business, I am contemplating a new measure of economic efficiency: capital intensity ratio. Because we do not show profit, the numerator-net profit is irrelevant. So I am struggling to calculate a new output measure of mission success. I am currently evaluating the Value Measurement Methodology used by the Government in the evaluation of IT investments.