Over 15 years ago, I received my LSS Black Belt (BB) training sponsored by my employer.  It was three weeks of classroom training delivered over three months by external consultants.  It kick-started my Continuous Improvement (CI) journey.  Since then, I have delivered LSS training as an internal trainer or external consultant to many large global organizations.  I also helped organizations in their LSS deployment, led many CI projects, and coached Green Belt (GB) and BB leaders in their projects.

Despite my own positive experience with LSS training, what I have learned over the years is that in most situations the traditional weeks long LSS training is ineffective in driving CI. 

If measured by the number of people trained or certified or the number of methods and tools covered, such training programs are very effective and easily justified for the investment.  

But if we start to measure the improvement of business outcomes, the desired problem-solving skills and behavior of the trained employees, and the positive impact on the CI culture and mindset of the organization, the training is very often ineffective.  Some troubling signs are

• It took 12 months or more to complete the first GB project.
• The GB could not recall some basic topics only a few weeks after the training.
• BB candidates have to create flash cards to prepare for their certification exams.
• GBs or BBs are no longer engaged in CI after obtaining their certifications.
• Certified BBs fail to exhibit or apply knowledge of some fundamental concepts, such as process stability, in their daily work.
• The trained employees do not perform or behave differently from those untrained in the CI methodology

I can see two main factors contributing to this poor outcome.

First, the training program only teaches the general methods and tools and does not improve skills.

Previously, I discussed training and coaching considerations in LSS deployment in The First Six Sigma Project and recommended customized training in Making Employee Training Effective.

Most LSS training programs developed by universities, professional organizations, and commercial vendors are designed for efficiency and profitability. The generic programs do not connect the content to the client organization’s problems and operational reality.  Few external trainers have the subject matter or industry knowledge to tailor the training to each client’s need.  Even if they are able to customize, few clients are willing to pay the substantial premium.

Corporate internal programs are not much better in terms of sufficiently relevant materials that relate to each employee’s job.  Employees do not start learning real problem-solving skills until they encounter problems in their projects, by which time they already forgot most of what was taught in the training. 

Second, the organization overly relies on training to improve business performance.

Two common fallacies can lead to this “improvement training trap.”

1. Employees have to be trained in the methods and tools or they won’t be able to learn themselves.
2. Once the employees are formally trained, they will solve all the problems on their own.

Can classroom training help accelerate learning? Absolutely.  Is it necessary or sufficient to develop the skills, mindset, and behavior for CI?  No.

These programs train methods and tools, whereas what the organizations really need is leadership development and behavior modification.  

Management has to understand that employees’ knowledge in CI methodologies is only a small but essential driver in business improvement.  When employees are not engaged in effective CI activities, it is not necessarily due to lack of knowledge – something else is likely limiting.  The root cause is rarely lack of training, and the solution is not more or even better training.  

It is management’s job to critically analyze all aspects of the organization, e.g. processes, structure, policies, resources, people, and culture, to identify the barriers to CI.  When they do, they will likely find out that LSS training is not the solution to their problem.

Project delays are common.  I heard many executives concerned or frustrated with projects missing critical dates.  Many organizations train project leaders in project management (PM) or even hire professional project managers to ensure that projects will meet the milestones.  Project management certifications, such as Project Management Professional® (PMP), have become a hiring preference or job requirement. 

Yet having trained project managers is seldom enough to eliminate project delays.  What is missing?  

Project managers are supposed to manage risks that can cause delays.  However, they also have to work within the confines of the organization, where senior management operate in ways incompatible with the best PM practices. 

An organization’s management practices often lead to unintended consequences, including project delays and missed deadlines.  These management practices include, for example

• Adding new projects without prioritization or additional resources
• Changing the deliverables or expanding the scope of an existing project
• Optimizing utilization by sharing the same critical resources among multiple projects
• Relying on fixed target dates in decision making without understanding the associated assumptions

The last one is worth elaborating. 

In most organizations, project managers prepare a project plan, which includes a schedule with dates of key milestones.  Some plans require more detailed activities and corresponding dates shown on a network diagram (e.g. a Gantt chart).   The activities and their durations can be uncertain, depending on the project.  For example, in a R&D or process improvement project, where the activity outcome is unpredictable and/or the method is unproven, the estimated time to complete a task can have a high degree of uncertainty. 

However, this uncertainty is not always communicated effectively to the decision makers.  A typical schedule given to the senior management is highly simplified and shows only one fixed duration or target date for each activity or milestone.  If not properly explained, this simplified schedule creates a perception of certainty that does not exist.  Unfortunately, many sponsors are not experienced in PM or are too busy to question the uncertainty in the schedule.  They subsequently use those dates for operational decisions and hold the project managers accountable for delivering on schedule.  The result is predictable.

There is no universal solution to project delays because there are many causes.  In addition to having competent project managers, senior management must recognize the impact of their own action on project success. 

The one practice that I recommend to all sponsors is to ask the project managers to show the uncertainty of milestone dates – how likely will it be completed by this date and why?

There are many ways to communicate the uncertainty.  One simple way is to show three scenarios¹.

• Most likely (or 50%/50% sooner or later than this date)
• Most optimistic (or 10% of chance sooner than this date)
• Most pessimistic (or 10% of chance later than this date)

The exact definitions of the three cases are not as important as the practice of using multiple dates to express the uncertainty.  This dialogue allows us to assess the risk more appropriately and make decisions accordingly.

In project management, the emphasis is on planning, not the plan.

1. Interested readers may want to look up the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT).

Following the DMAIC steps, the project team can think rigorously and approach the problem systematically.  Books and training materials include applicable tools for each phase and checklists for tollgate reviews. Organizations often have DMAIC templates that define mandatory and optional deliverables for each phase.  All of these are supposed to help the GBs and BBs to determine the right questions to ask and the right tools to apply along the DMAIC process.

In reality, the templates are not as helpful.  I observe many project leaders either confused with what to do in each DMAIC phase or doing the wrong things.  For example,

• Project teams include a tool or analysis simply because it’s a “required” phase deliverable, even if it doesn’t improve the process or our knowledge. 
• The project leaders are more concerned with presenting visually impressive slides to the management than understanding the process. They re-create a SIPOC or Fishbone diagram on a slide from the flipchart or white board when a snapshot is perfectly legible.
• Project teams go to a great length to document the current state electronically (e.g. in Visio) as a single process (which is futile), rather than spending the time “Go Gemba” to understand the variation.
• The project continues even after the evidence and analysis show that the project baseline or business case is no longer valid.  Instead of using the tollgate to stop or re-scope the project, the team shows various tools and analyses to justify the value of going forward.  They are afraid that terminating the project will reflect negatively on them.
• The project team is sent back to complete a deliverable at the tollgate because it is not satisfactory to the management even when the deliverable is not critical to the next step in the project.  As a result, teams always overprepare for the tollgates in fear of imperfect deliverables.
• Instead of seeing an inadequate measurement system as an opportunity re-scope the project to address it, the team is asked to demonstrate an adequate measurement system before closing the Measure phase.  They are stuck in Measure to perform Improve activities.

Why are these happening?

I discussed in my earlier blogs about some related challenges in “Starting Lean Six Sigma” and “The First Six Sigma Project.”  By understanding how Lean Six Sigma fits in the organization’s objectives, strategy, and capabilities, the leaders can choose the right deployment approach for the organization.  By selecting the right candidates and projects and by providing the right training/coaching to both sponsors and GBs/BBs, the leaders can avoid many common mistakes when the organization is in the low continuous improvement (CI) maturity state.

While the experience of the project leaders is a factor, I attribute the main cause of many Lean Six Sigma deployment issues to the organization, not the individual GBs or BBs.

Beyond the initial stage of the deployment, the organization’s chance to achieve and sustain a CI culture and high return on investment depends on its leaders.  Many Lean Six Sigma challenges simply reflect the existing organizational and leadership issues. Using the DMAIC methodology as a “plug & play” solution by the leaders only exacerbates the underlying problems.

DMAIC templates and tollgate reviews can help guide newly trained GBs and BBs as they practice scientific problem solving.  But when they become prescriptive requirements and project performance criteria dictated by management, it discourages dialogue and organizational learning, which are basic elements in a CI culture.  Judging project progress against a fixed set of DMAIC phase deliverables without understanding the applicability and true contribution in each case only causes confusion and fear.  It reinforces the “fear of failure” mindset in many organizations. 

The DMAIC stages are not linear, but iterative within the project, e.g. if a solution in Improve is insufficient to solve the problem, the team can go back to Analyze.  A DMAIC project should not be run like a “waterfall” project, but an Agile project with rapid learning cycles. With reasonable justification, the team should be allowed to decide to pass the tollgate and continue to the next phase.  Empowering the teams is risky and comes at a cost, but they should be given the opportunities to learn from their mistakes (if it’s not too costly).  Competent coaching will minimize the risk.

Compounded by the fear, poor training, and lack of experience, project efforts are often driven by management expectations at tollgate reviews.  A polished presentation with a complete set of phase deliverables beautifully illustrated with tables and graphs shows team’s accomplishments and satisfies untrained reviewers.  But it often fails at facilitating critical analysis and deep understanding required to address root causes – it sends the wrong message to the organization that the new CI methodology is all about presentation not substance.

If any of the examples sounds familiar or if you are concerned with building a CI culture and capability, one area for improvement might be in your DMAIC stage-gate process. 

As a management consultant specializing in quality and continuous improvement, I see opportunities everywhere to improve customer satisfaction.   Most of them don’t require significant resources or efforts.  Despite the rhetoric about being customer-focused, most businesses fail to see and act upon such opportunities.  

Here is an example from my personal experience.

On a Sunday evening in March this year, I flew from Raleigh/Durham to Phoenix to speak at the American Society for Quality (ASQ) Lean & Six Sigma Conference.  Upon arrival at the airport, I went to the rental car center to pick up my reserved car.  Since it was my first time visiting Phoenix, it took me a while before finding the rental company in a giant parking deck. There was a single service agent, who was sitting comfortably inside a booth.  

He finished the paperwork and pointed to the direction in the garage where I could find my car.  It was a good few minutes of walking carrying my bags before I found it.  Throwing my bags in the car and sitting down, the first thing I noticed was a large horizontal crack across the windshield!  Wait, how could anyone have missed it! Pulling out my bags and walking all the way back to the service booth, I complained to the service agent.  He didn’t seem surprised or even care – he simply gave me the paperwork for another car and pointing to me where it was. 

I walked back to a sea of vehicles and found the replacement, a hatchback.  It had a large board (some interior part of the vehicle) sitting across in the back where the luggage goes.  The backseats were folded down forward.  Was the car just returned by someone and was it prepared for new customers?

I sat down and immediately smelled cigarette smoke in the car.  It was supposed to be a smoke-free vehicle.  I am highly sensitive to cigarette smell, which gives me headache. But it was late (past 10pm where I live), after 5 hours of sitting in the airplane, I hadn’t had dinner, it was a good distance to the conference hotel, and I had a presentation first thing in the morning.  I didn’t want to go back asking for another car – what was the chance that I would get a better one?  I was hoping (a big mistake!) that the smell would go away after a while.  But it didn’t, even after full blowing fans and open windows.  

Before exiting the garage, I noticed that the rental agreement listed the current mileage as 4858 whereas the odometer showed 48588.  It shouldn’t matter as the rental came with unlimited miles.  But I mentioned it to the lady at the exit gate anyway when she checked my paperwork.  She couldn’t care less.

When I returned the car a few days later, I told the agent about the smoke and the need to get the car cleaned and ready before renting to customers, he told me that the car was clean.  Really?  I didn’t hear a sorry or any apologies. 

He then gave me a wrong receipt — $20 more than what I reserved for.  It was good that I checked it.  I told him it was wrong.  He then blamed me for not returning with the tank full when in fact he looked at the gauge already, which showed full. I topped off the tank before I returned the car and had the receipt to prove it.  Luckily, I was prepared and brought a copy of my reservation showing the correct full price.   He finally produced a correct receipt.

What’s comical about this experience was that the day after returning home, I received an email message from the rental car company with “We Value Your Opinion!” in the subject line.  

I am familiar with the Net Promoter Score (NPS) and a long-time fan of Frederick Reichheld and his books The Loyalty Effect, Loyalty Rules, and The Ultimate Question.  I knew what it meant when asked “how likely are you to recommend [a business] to a friend or colleague?”  So I promptly filled out the survey.   In the survey, it asked me what they could do to make me rate them a 10.  Here was my response.

Do not worry about getting a 10 when you deserve a zero.  Do the basics to get back to 6, 7, or 8 by giving customers a clean vehicle and a correct receipt, right the first time.  Train your people to care about their jobs and do them competently.  Treat customers with respect and appreciation.  Know that the most profitable customer segments have the most options when it comes to renting a car.

Businesses need to learn the right way to understand customers and improve their satisfaction. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the NPS has been seriously misused and abused by many businesses, who don’t understand that it is not the score, but the quality of the products and services, that matters.  Customers don’t care about the number. 

Stop asking customers for their feedback if you cannot meet their basic, obvious requirements.

Customers give us plenty of feedback through their normal interactions with the business.  A survey may complement our knowledge about customer satisfaction but cannot replace proactive learning and improvement by every employee every day.

So if you want to improve quality and customer satisfaction, first things first — go back to the basics and get them right. 

• Making little progress because of no time or resources
• Stuck in the Define phase two months after the project start
• Confused by the tools and their applicability in the project
• Overwhelmed by the number of deliverables for each phase
• Taking a long time to obtain data to establish the baseline

This happens in a manufacturing setting where metrics, data, and business cases are readily available.  In a non-production environment, things can be murkier.

For years I was on the teams deploying Lean Six Sigma in two global organizations and have supported many others as a trainer, coach, and consultant.  Although a GB Six Sigma project should be done in 3 to 6 months, it is not uncommon to see most of the GBs unable to finish their first projects six months after the training.  A significant portion do not complete their projects even after 12 months.

Although the reasons for such struggles vary among organizations, some mistakes occur with high frequency.  Most of the mistakes can be explained by the organization’s low Six Sigma maturity and lack of adequate resources.  One can start understanding this problem by asking the three questions I posted last year in Starting Lean Six Sigma.

1. What is the reason to bring in the methodology?
2. What are the specific and measurable goals to justify the investment?
3. What is the organization’s experience in managing change?

These questions help organizations set the right deployment strategy and avoid disappointment due to misinformed expectations.  With the right strategy in place, there are still critical execution details to consider when starting out.

Selection of the GB candidate to lead the project

This decision is the most crucial factor of project success.  Does the person have the technical capability, leadership skills, and most importantly, the personal drive to lead the project?  If this is your first or second wave of Six Sigma projects, choose absolutely only the most promising, capable leaders for Green Belt or Black Belt training.   If not, they are unlikely to succeed in a low maturity Six Sigma environment.

Selection of the Six Sigma project

While most organizations choose projects from their business portfolios that have significant business impact, many fail to consider other key factors.  One factor is suitability as a DMAIC project or the first Six Sigma project for an inexperienced leader.  One example is an implementation project that should be “Just do it.”  Another involves a poorly understood process, which leads to convoluted objectives and/or an impossibly large scope.  

Training and coaching of project sponsors

The project sponsors own the projects and have the most influence on the GB.  They approve the project charters, review deliverables at the DMAIC toll gates, and make resources and other critical decisions.  Few GBs have the luck of having a sponsor who is well versed in the Six Sigma methodology.   Not providing sponsor training prior to project and candidate selection is a common but avoidable mistake.  A one-day training and some ongoing coaching of the sponsors is sufficient in most cases.

Training and coaching of GBs

Most organizations deploying Six Sigma provide some form of training and coaching, which is essential to GB’s learning and project success.  Generic Six Sigma training may be less costly upfront, but GBs will have a harder time applying the methodology correctly and require much more intensive coaching.  In my classes, GBs learn much more effectively if the content and format are specific to the industry or customized to their jobs.  In addition, companies often underestimate the amount of coaching required and overestimate the impact the coaches can have.   This is only exacerbated by poor project and candidate selection, lack of sponsor training, and ineffective training of the methodology.

Lean Six Sigma can transform an organization.  But it takes time, commitment, and the right approach.  The challenges we often see are not necessarily inherent in the methodology and can be overcome by the right deployment strategy and method.

Many people are familiar with the seven types of waste originally identified by Taiichi Ohno.

• Defects or rework
• Waiting
• Overproduction
• Overprocessing
• Inventories
• Motion
• Transport

These types of waste are common not only in physical production but also in services and transactional environments.  With some experience, one cannot stop but see waste everywhere they work.  For example, mistakes happen and require rework (defects).  Documents go through multiple reviewers before approval (overprocessing).  Searching a number of locations before the information is found (motion). 

In my observation, this simple concept and basic awareness of waste is a very effective first step toward building a Lean organization.  Who wants to waste their time doing things not valued?

As an organization becomes more mature in Lean thinking, it will discover more types of waste that are less visible and potentially more detrimental.   For example, James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, in their book Lean Thinking, included “the design of goods and services which do not meet user’s needs” as an additional type of waste. 

Personally, I think the worst type of waste is underutilized human potential.  Many would agree.  It is also the most difficult type to reduce.  I see it manifest in three common forms.

1. Employees spend a large proportion of their time on non-value added activities.  These include attending unproductive meetings, writing lengthy reports that few people read, or preparing elaborate presentations for management when a summary suffices.  
2. Employees are not able to use their knowledge and skills they are hired for.  To quote a senior executive, “The company hires the best people and then ties their hands when they come to work.”  Often motivated employees eager to solve a problem only are told “that’s not your job.”
3. Employees are not growing to be more productive or effective.  They are stuck doing the same job using the same skills for years.  Many are not aware of the growth opportunities until late in their careers.  Some technical training, coaching, or exposure to leadership concepts, continuous improvement methodologies, or computer skills goes a long way to improve their performance.     

As more people move from traditionally manual work to knowledge work, the demand for new knowledge and skills only accelerates.  If we do not effectively address the waste of underutilized human potential, the loss will be immeasurable for both individuals and organizations.

Just to understand the problem is an enormous challenge.  But I believe there are steps that employees and managers can take to make a significant difference.

For example, for employees

• Take ownership of our career and professional development; no one else has the responsibility.
• Continue to develop ourselves professionally, in technical, business, and leadership skills. This can be achieved through education (e.g. taking classes) and experience (e.g. taking on a challenging project).
• Seek mentorship and feedback from others within our own organization and outside.

For managers,

• Encourage our employees to do the above and support them with our words and actions.
• Be aware of the impact of our actions and decisions on our employees.  Are we the root cause of their non-value added activities?
• Have a growth mindset in our employees.  Continue to provide them challenging opportunities.  Support, mentor, and coach them along the way. 

What is the worst type of waste you see?  How do you reduce it?

We operate in a highly unpredictable environment.  The increasing interest and practice of Lean and Agile methodologies is a clear acknowledgement of the unknowns and unknowables.  Unable to predict the future with high confidence, we have to learn and adapt as we go. 

How can individuals and organizations be more effective in dealing with this new reality?

In project management, multi-generational project planning is used to transform a large project into a series of smaller ones, each achieving a significant milestone relatively quickly.  In addition, the lessons learned and knowledge acquired in each stage refine the goal and reduce the uncertainty in the subsequent planning and execution. 

This is an example of analytical thinking — a critical competency of the project manager — which includes

1. Breaking down a large, complex problem into smaller, manageable components
2. Prioritizing the components based on a set of criteria, such as risk, effort, impact, and interdependency
3. Sequencing the efforts in such a way that minimizes risk and cost while maximizing the desired outcome

In today’s work, analytical thinking is not just a required competency of project managers but any knowledge worker who has to solve technical or business problems.  I use it as an essential criterion for evaluation of job candidates and development of employees.

Fortunately, everyone can improve their analytical thinking at work through continued learning and practice of some well-established conceptual frameworks and scientific methods, for example

1. Product development using Design of Experiments (DOE) 

Frequently, there are numerous variables that we need to understand in order to design a product or process or improve its performance.  When a one-factor-at-a-time or a full factorial design is not most effective, a screening design can be used first to identify the critical few among many potential factors.  Then less resources are required to study the few more thoroughly, e.g. characterizing their interactions and the Response Surface, to achieve optimal outcomes.  When designed strategically, each study augments the previous ones, avoiding unnecessary repeats.

2. Quality improvement by understanding variation

Reducing defects and improving customer satisfaction is a main goal of quality.  Unfortunately, in many organizations, quality issues persist despite repeated improvement efforts.  While subject matter expertise is important, sustained improvement requires understanding of process stability (i.e. lack of special cause variation) and capability (i.e. probability of the process producing a result that meets customer requirements).  That is why process improvement methodologies, such as Six Sigma, rely on the principle of Statistical Process Control (SPC) to identify and separate special cause variation from common cause variation.  Only after eliminating special cause variation, can we truly characterize and improve the process.  Then, if necessary, we can improve process capability by reducing common cause variation and/or re-centering the process to the desired target.

3. Lead time reduction using Lean concepts

The ability to consistently design and deliver a product or service faster than competition is critical to business success.   The lead time (e.g. request-to-delivery time) of many business processes remains long and variable. These processes often involve numerous and convoluted steps across multiple functions.  It is impractical and unnecessary to analyze and improve all steps. Seeing from a customer’s perspective, Lean thinking brings us clarity by separating value-added from non-value added activities (i.e. waste) that impede the continuous flow of value to the customer.   By reducing or abolishing waste, such as waiting, overproduction, and inventory, we can simplify and speed up the processes without investing in new capacity.

These are but a few examples in which proven scientific and management methods help break down complex problems into manageable components that lead to effective solutions. 

Buzzwords like “work smart,” “be agile,” and “fail fast” may create the initial awareness or inspiration.  But they rarely lead to operational effectiveness or material change.  Building an organization that is Lean, Agile, responsive, or adaptive is transformative and requires systematic identification and development of required competencies, such as analytical thinking.

Adapting to a changing world is a challenge that demands analytical thinking as well.   I am optimistic that individuals and organizations will continue to develop new competencies by embracing sound problem-solving methodologies.

As a result, project managers have to navigate in an environment where project sponsors, teams, and other stakeholders have little experience in project management and have wildly different expectations.  The project managers are given little authority and limited resources, and yet they are expected to manage teams and deliver results on time in chaotic environments.  It is a challenging job even for the most seasoned project managers.  For those new to the role, the job can be frustrating and stressful.

Experience will help.  It starts with the most crucial stage – project initiation.  Here are a few suggestions for the new project managers.

1. Be a manager

Whether you are leading a product development or continuous improvement project, you are a leader and manager, even if you don’t have a formal authority.   You are responsible for the success of the project. 

This mindset can be hard for some who haven’t been in a management role.  A project manager is a manager, like any other business manager, even if some people don’t treat them like managers.

To be a manager, you need to show ownership and think strategically.  

In my early career, I made the mistake of jumping on projects without helping define them as if they were non-negotiable tasks to be executed.   I continue to see project managers making similar mistakes.  For many reasons, projects are rarely well defined at the onset.  Some are poorly conceived. 

It is project manager’s job to help the management or sponsor create a clear project charter to achieve the desired outcome.  Discuss with your sponsor to understand the big picture, e.g. what is the true intent, how is it aligned with the overall business objectives, and how does it relate to other projects or initiatives?

2. Understand stakeholders

Some new project managers have only managed their own projects, not ones done by a team.  Cross-functional projects are much more common and present a new set of challenges. 

As a project manager, you depend on others to collaborate and deliver the results, although in many organizations project managers are expected to contribute as a subject matter expert.  It is the project manager’s responsibility to mobilize resources and influence decisions.  In many projects, the project manager also plays the role of a change agent, facilitating a smooth transition to the future state and ensuring sustained results.

It is critical that the project manager knows all the stakeholders involved.  They can include their direct manager, other executives and decision makers, team members, support functions, and external parties. Proactively meet and discuss with them from the very beginning of a project and understand their roles & responsibilities, interest, concerns, and attitude toward the project.   These conversations can uncover potential risks and opportunities and help plan for effective communication and engagement of the stakeholders throughout the project.

3. Set the right expectations

Stakeholders have different expectations of the project and of the project manager.  Many projects get into trouble because of misaligned and ambiguous goals, deliverables, scope, decision rights, roles & responsibilities, etc.  It is the project manager’s job to manage such expectations.

Built on a clear understanding of the stakeholders, the project manager can help clarify and align expectations and communicate in the form of a project charter.  If you think of a project charter as another formality or a template to fill out in the process, it would be a mistake.  It transfers the ownership and project management responsibility from the sponsor to the project manager.   It is true that the sponsor or senior management remains accountable for the decision of initiating the project.  But now you are the manager; you accepted the responsibility to execute it according to the charter. 

The project charter is a powerful tool that allows a project manager to refine and/or re-define a project to achieve the true intent of the sponsor, minimize risks, and maximize return on investment and probability of success.  It facilitates strategic and tactical conversations between the sponsor and the project manager, who is a business manager and trusted advisor.

Don’t miss this crucial opportunity.  Insist on shaping the project charter before accepting the role as a project manager.

Of course, knowing what do to is only the first step.  There are real-world challenges in organizations with low project management maturity.  A manager’s job is never easy, prescriptive, or straightforward.  Project managers are managers after all.

As an employee, I was fortunate to receive various technical and managerial training throughout my career.  The knowledge, skills, and experience I gained allowed me to grow continually.  As a manager, I planned and sponsored training for my teams.  As a trainer and consultant, I have designed and delivered training ranging from statistical methods to executive leadership.  It is always gratifying whether I am a student or instructor.

I believe that people in every organization have tremendous potential for greater creativity and productivity.  Employee training is an important aspect of capability development.  Few people would argue its value.  However, training requires substantial investments in time and resources, and its benefits for the employees as well as the organization can be hard to measure, especially in the short term.  

How can we ensure a good return on investment in employee training?

Based on my experience, one effective approach is to integrate the training into the normal business operation so that the benefits are immediate and measurable.  This necessitates customizing the training to each organization’s needs.

Ideally an organization has the internal resources to deliver customized training.  But most have to rely on external vendors or consultants.  Evaluating and selecting the right vendor and services to build and deliver customized training requires more careful considerations than standard, off-the-shelf solutions offered by many.

As examples, here are a few questions you may want to ask when evaluating a vendor, its trainers and services.

Planning

• Does the vendor inquire and seek to understand the specific need of the training with respect to your business objectives and strategy? 
• Does the vendor discuss about your short- and long-term goals of the training?  How are they being measured?
• Does the trainer discuss with your managers, subject matter experts (SMEs), and staff being trained to understand how the training materials fit in their current or future jobs or projects?
• Does the trainer request and acquire specific client information to build relevant and engaging examples and case studies for the training? Do they build it themselves or with your SMEs?
• What alternative training approaches does the trainer present?  Do they present the risks and benefits of each, given your specific business situation and needs?
• Are different levels or scopes of training offered to employees based on their roles and special needs? What are some roll-out options if you have multiple business units or sites?
• Can the vendor provide change management and communication support so that the new capability is fully adopted in the organization?
• Is there a train-the-trainer plan to allow you to deliver your own training in the future?
• How much freedom do you have to use and/or reproduce the training materials for internal training and capability development?

Training

• How effective and engaging is the training, including pre-class reading, hands-on exercises and discussion, simulations, team activities, assignments, and knowledge reviews?
• Does the trainer encourage feedback during the training? Are they able to make same-day or next-day modifications based on feedback?
• Does the training continue to incorporate real business problems raised by students during the class?
• Does the training include facilitated sessions to practice skills to solve real or simulated business problems?
• How often are the concepts, methods or tools taught in the class used right away by the employees in their jobs?

Post-training

• How much do trained employees continue to use the knowledge and skills in their jobs? How much do they recommend the training to others?
• Can the trainer coach employees in applying the skills in their jobs?
• Does the vendor provide you a summary of feedback and improvements made?
• After each session, does the vendor discuss with you to refine the training content, delivery, and/or the roll-out plan?

Not every organization needs customized training.  For many, it can be a powerful way to unleash the potential of its people while delivering measurable business outcomes.

While Lean implementation is often associated with manufacturing and other process-oriented environments, I have seen many benefits in introducing Lean to R&D.  Many benefits are direct, measurable, and visible.  For example,

• Increased capacity and productivity
• Reduced waste in materials and supplies
• Higher utilization of shared equipment and facility
• Less wasted time searching for what is needed
• More reliable, reproducible scientific results
• Less downtime and waiting
• Improved safety and compliance

Through the years of helping organizations improve R&D productivity as well as managing my own R&D groups, I developed more appreciation on the less tangible and less visible benefit of Lean.  That is, its impact on an organization’s culture and capability. 

What happens in an organization taking up a Lean initiative is that it brings everyone together to solve problems as a team, often for the first time.  In many organizations, we often see problems from our own vantage points and perceive the causes as something coming from the outside.  Participation in Lean helps break down the silos, surface the root causes, and connect the people.

The end-to-end value stream mapping or simply process mapping helps us see the big picture and relations with others.  It helps us understand what others do and why they do what they do.

The simple identification of 7 types of waste around us is enlightening as how much time and resources we are wasting every day without much awareness.  It’s energizing when we eliminate unnecessary activities and free up time to accomplish more important things.

Visual management and 5S (sort, simplify, shine, standardize, sustain) not only help organize the content and flow of the work but also establish a new norm of team communication and community.

Five-whys challenges our assumptions about the real cause of a problem.  It focuses the discussion on the system or process, not the people.  The results are collaborative problem-solving and more innovative and sustainable solutions.

The list goes on and on.

If you are looking for a mechanism to help develop your organization, consider the many hidden benefits of Lean.

• Develop ownership and accountability
• Make problems, risks, and opportunities visible
• Engage people in continuous improvement
• Simplify and improve communication
• Facilitate cross-functional teamwork and collaboration
• Increase individual and team’s problem-solving skills

Implementation of Lean is achievable even in non-traditional areas.  Thoughtful execution can lead to positive, long-lasting impact on the organization and its people, beyond the quick, measurable results.