Which prioritized projects would Peter Piper pick?

I've been asked to speak about project selection at an upcoming symposium. In doing research for this, I've reviewed articles from iSixSigma and other sources, from both the Six Sigma "ranked project hopper" perspective and the Lean A3 - strategic deployment perspective. And I've done some project-picking in my time, too, using both those methods. With all the emphasis on data-driven decisions, there's one element that is usually mentioned in passing that may be the most important of all. And that is... (drum roll please) Which problems are the executive leaders most emotionally driven to resolve?

Even if significant costs can be saved - even if reliability can be improved - even if staffing efficiencies can be realized - in my experience, if the project or deployment champion isn't engaged, you may end up with a beautiful project that won't be sustained.

A trite saying is that "people treasure what their bosses measure." If one or more leaders is emotionally engaged in a project, they will pester the facilitator and team members. They will ask for data at inconvenient times. They will ask whether there are any barriers to be resolved. They will cheerfully provide resources. Staff members will know this is important to them, and will respond accordingly. These leaders will behave in a way that lets everyone know this is important work - they have an obvious commitment to the project and its success.

When leaders are somewhat interested, they may ask questions and be willing to meet, but forward movement is definitely in the realm of the facilitator. These leaders may be helpful when asked, but they will wait to be asked. They are pleased to be involved as long as it doesn't take too much effort on their part.

When leaders are not engaged, it's hard to get meeting time with them, and meetings may be frequently postponed or cancelled. They don't want to be bothered with details about the project. They only want to know when it's over so they can go back to spending time on their other "more important" activities.

If you've ever led a project, you've seen behavior that falls into one of these categories. The pain-in-the-butt activist leaders can be the most forward thinking. The middle-of-the-road hobbyists can be helpful, if always a step behind. The don't-bother-me-now-can't-you-see-I'm-working types will be happy to take credit once the project is done, but then ignore it to concentrate on other crisis situations.

So I'm suggesting that, while project prioritization matrices and strategic deployment models are great when all of the leaders are equally and emotionally engaged, there may be a simpler method to use when getting started or when engagement is not high across the board.

Have any of you ever selected your project by which executive was most enthusiastic? It would be great to hear your experiences!

p.s. For those of you detail-oriented folks whose memories are tickled by Peter Piper, it's from the collection of "Mother Goose" rhymes.

When I first went to Six Sigma training, I was very enthusiastic about it and shared everything I learned over the dinner table with my family. I talked about my projects and the tools, my successes and failures. I always thought they listened politely and then forgot about it. You know, Mom talking about work AGAIN, yada-yada-blah-blah-blah.

Then one day recently my husband came home and asked me to help him transfer some process maps into an electronic version. With a team from his workplace, he had facilitated a current state and future state map, and then asked the team to come up with goals for the project. They included:

- Identify opportunities for flow

- Eliminate duplicate steps

- Standardize process

- Meet stakeholder requirements

- Ensure that accreditation requirements are met

- Develop metrics for monitoring the process long-term

Now, he had talked about doing an improvement project at work for this particular process, but I hadn't quizzed him on the details. So I was surprised and pleased that his project incorporated so many elements of the Lean and Six Sigma methods.

"Wow, honey, that's great!" I said. "You really learned a lot from hearing me talk about my job at the dinner table!"

"Well, not really," he replied, "it's just common sense!"

Now, while his answer was not particularly tactful, I did like it for one reason. It made me reflect that it would be great to live in a world where utilizing process improvement tools and concepts is "just common sense!" - instead of the resistance-laden, data-poor, time-crunched activity that it sometimes is.

I'll think I'll spend a few moments in that imaginary world, before returning to the next task on my to-do list!

A lot of my conversations recently have centered around certification for lean. Coming from colleagues who started in Six Sigma as a Green Belt or Black Belt, it seems "natural" that when you add lean facilitation to your skills, you could get certified in lean, too.

But, as I understand it, the traditional path for lean practitioners has been based more on experience and expertise than certification. The concept of taking a test and getting certified as a lean leader seems not to fit the philosophy as I have learned it (so far!)

Is there a move to create a lean certification, either for facilitators or senseis, similar to the Green Belt / Black Belt / Master Black Belt model? If so, does it require a project as part of the certification? And, what is the title that you end up with?

I know there are "lean facilitator" certificates offered by a variety of universities and vendors. I've even seen an ad for "Lean Six Sigma Sensei" certification. How about "Lean Greenbelt, Lean Blackbelt, and Lean Masterblackbelt?" "Lean Expert?"

I'm also starting to see classified ads for positions that read "Master Black Belt / Lean Sensei certification required."

So is there a new push for "Sensei certification?" Or is that just wishful thinking on the part of people who like to collect letters after their names?

Inquiring minds want to know!

By popular demand, words to an old favorite tune that you can use while watching the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, at the Seventh-Inning Stretch:

Take me out to the Gemba

Take me out to the flow!

Find me a Value Stream I can track

I don't want waste to ever come back!

For it's root, root, root out the defects,

Reduce variation even more,

For it's 1-2-3-4-5-6 Sigma we want

On the old shop floor!

(With apologies to Jack Norworth who wrote the original words in 1908, and with thanks to Albert Von Tilzer who wrote the tune!)

As you may know, if you're a baseball fan, Major League Baseball is holding its All-Star Game on July 15 at Yankee Stadium.

You may also know that you can create your own "fantasy" baseball team, on-line, by selecting players and assigning them to your team. Then, as the statistics build up week after week, the organizers compile the results and figure out who has the best team roster and therefore the best record in stats and games won.

Now, I think we could have a kind of fantasy all-star game of our own, based on outstanding Lean and Six Sigma accomplishments. What do you think?

THE STARTING LINE-UP

1 Pitcher: Taiichi Ohno

2 Catcher: Shigeo Shingo

3 First Base: Eiji Toyoda

4 Second Base: Sakichi Toyoda

5 Third Base: Kiichro Toyoda

6 Shortstop: Genichi Taguchi

7 Left Field: Bill Smith

8 Center Field: Jack Welch

9 Right Field: Bob Galvin

Designated Hitter: Henry Ford

Manager: W, Edwards Deming

I'd be interested in hearing whether you'd like any other "team members" to play on your all-star roster!

I had the privilege recently of helping to teach lean to a group of university leaders. I had great fun assisting with the first day of class, when we introduced basic lean concepts. However, when my instructing partner and I looked at our plus-deltas from the day (comments about what the participants valued, and what we should change), there were some sticky-notes saying "too much material" and "went too fast" and "too much to remember." Even though we had paced the day rather slowly, as I thought, it caused us to wonder whether we needed to restructure the day - or had we just not taught effectively?

On the second day, we got into Value Stream Mapping. As we went through the material, topics from Day 1 kept popping up, as you would expect. By repeating the concepts and giving specific, education-based examples, we were able to build a lot of momentum around the purpose and usefulness of Value Stream Mapping. The plus-deltas on Day 2 showed that most people enjoyed putting the concepts to work around real-life examples.

By Day 3, when we used examples of frustrating processes to create Future State maps, the group was in full swing. They were coming up with so many ideas to remove waste and reduce delays and hand-offs, that we were hard-pressed to keep them from going right out and implementing their suggestions. ("Wait, you don't have enough feedback from the front-line workers yet!!! Remember, it's JUST an exercise!!!") The evaluation included many "plusses" and only a few "deltas."

What made the difference? We introduced just as many new concepts the first day as we did the second and the third. But by incorporating the tools that we'd already introduced, as we brought up new ones, we gave the group practice in "trying on" the lean approach in different ways, and finally we let them loose on real-life examples.

This experience made it clear to me that I shouldn't be judgmental when people need to hear things more than once, in order to incorporate and integrate the concepts. I've seen many learners become anxious when they're overwhelmed with new terminology; but on the other hand, there are always some "drivers" in the audience who aren't satisfied unless you're covering each slide in about 30 seconds. It's interesting that each group seems to have its own pace of learning. In the educators' group, we may have gone a little too fast at first, but then they hit their stride on the second and third days. It was fun to watch the light bulbs turn on and the enthusiasm kick in!

As usual, for every day that I'm giving instruction, I learn just about as much as I teach. Hooray for the educational process!

You don't have to read much of the daily paper, in the US at least, to see data presented in very interesting ways.

"Gas price SKYROCKETS to $4 a gallon!"

"The Dow Jones Industrial Average PLUMMETS to 12,500!"

"Pistons [Basketball Team] Have the EDGE Now!"

"Kid Obesity Rate STEADY"

Now, part of the reason for this hyperbole is that exciting headlines get more people to buy the paper, and so you may think that the exaggeration is just a way to get people to read the accompanying story.

But when you look more closely, the gas price moved from $3.97 the week before; the DJIA had been 12,600 on the previous day, the Pistons were tied 2-2 with the Celtics, and buried in the paragraph about the kids was this statement: "...it's too soon to know if this really means we're beginning to make meaningful inroads... it may simply be a statistical fluke."

Well, that puts a little different spin on the headlines. I worry about this for two main reasons. First, we are all at the mercy of first impressions, and while newspapers need to sell, they sometimes do it by presenting data in a way that is easy to get alarmed over, but not easy to understand (as we project engineers would understand it). Now, no one expects to see or hear detailed information on how the data was collected, or how the sample size was calculated. But how many people read the full story in depth? At least, we should train ourselves (and our kids) to realize when data is being presented as a teaser for the story. As I put it in my Lean Six Sigma class, "What questions should you ask about how this data was collected?"

The other reason that I worry is that the math that my kids were taught, in their suburban-Detroit high school, had very little to do with real life; they could figure cosines and vectors and the slope of a line, but not how to figure whether a drop of 12,600 to 12,500 was cataclysmic. I for one would eliminate geometry in favor of a statistics class - including statistical process control, presented with real-life scenarios. Then readers and viewers and listeners could have an idea about whether data was being presented in a rational way by the news media.

What do you think? Is data presented in the news in an ALARMING fashion???

I was privileged recently to attend the American Society for Quality's World Conference in Houston, TX. What an energetic gathering of quality-minded people!

One topic that I heard a lot of conversation about was concern for leadership of Lean and Six Sigma. There were many stories shared of new deployments, attempted deployments, and failed deployments. One question that I've been asking, when I hear these accounts, is "Who was your Jack Welch?" In other words, who was the top executive that championed the initiative over all obstacles?

Too many times, I heard that the push for Lean or Six Sigma came from middle management - not a criticism of those individuals, of course, but if top executives don't catch the fever, then the initiative can be treated as a hobby for someone down below. When the going gets tough, it's easy to fall back on an excuse such as "Six Sigma's not working for us." As my MBB Todd Sperl used to say, it's the difference between support and commitment.

Therefore, it was not a big surprise to read, in Michael Marx's recent post Project Failure, that the number one reason for failure of Six Sigma projects was... no management support. I suspect that could read, instead, no top-level executive support.

So now, when I come into an oragnization that says they're "doing" Six Sigma or Lean, I ask: "Who's your Jack Welch?" The answer is always illuminating.

Quite a few Black Belts from manufacturing environments have told me, "I don't know anything about healthcare, but my industry is in a downturn so I'm looking for a Black Belt job in a hospital. I figure I can pick up the lingo once I'm there."

I've also been asked to speak to Industrial and Process Engineers who wanted to learn about healthcare so they could apply for jobs in that sector.

Now, I'm in full agreement that healthcare is a hotbed of opportunity for applying Lean and Six Sigma concepts! And I applaud people who are willing to step out of their comfort zones to try something in a new area. So here are some tips for Process Improvement Experts seeking to transition from another industry into healthcare.

Things you should NEVER say when discussing Lean Six Sigma with healthcare providers:

1. "Even though Lean and Six Sigma were developed in manufacturing environments, it's directly applicable to treating patients - after all, it's just like moving widgets down the assembly line!" (Trust me - this will be perceived as an insult.)

2. "Everyone will need to do standard work - there's no room for creativity in healthcare processes!" (Healthcare workers pride themselves on their ability to solve problems in a creative way - lead them gently into the concept of standard work for individual tasks, first.)

3. "We'll start by giving everyone three days of training in statistical analysis - let's begin with the nursing staff." (The most polite thing the nurses will do is roll their eyes - anything that takes them away from providing patient care will be suspect.)

4. "Patient Registration is an area that's non-value-added." (Don't tell the finance department, and the caregivers who depend on registration information such as emergency contact numbers, that putting accurate information into the computer system isn't a "vital x" for their functions!)

5. "Doctors are not customers - they're only providers." (Whoa! Physicians need to be treated as co-customers with patients - since doctors order tests and treatments, and interpret them on behalf of their patients - and decide which hospital to admit their patients to!)

So - there's your short course for Lean Six Sigma in Healthcare! Can you think of anything else that should NEVER be said, in healthcare or other industries???

Today's question comes from the realm of business etiquette. Since I didn't think Miss Manners would have the answer, I'm asking in this forum.

Traditionally, when an organization begins deployment of Six Sigma, "Black Belts" are hired, trained, and certified by their company or an outside vendor. After some years of service, some Black Belts rotate back out into the world of operations.

When this happens, are you a Black Belt (ret)? Former Black Belt? Still a Black Belt, even if it's not still your official title? If you're certified, do you still put your credentials behind your name? Or is that just a vanity, if you're not in a Black Belt position?

Inquiring minds want to know! If you've made the transition from a full-time Black Belt role into a different position, or know someone who has managed this move, please share your opinions & experiences!

Thanks on behalf of future former Black Belts!