What makes a goal achievable?  In my work as a Continuous Improvement (CI) coach and consultant, I have seen some common practices setting a numerical goal using, for example

1. A target set by management, e.g. a productivity standard for the site
2. Customer requirements, e.g. a minimum process capability
3. Some benchmark value from a similar process
4. A number with sufficient business benefit, e.g. 10% improvement

At the first glance, these methods seem reasonable.  In practice, they are problematic for two reasons.

First, the goals are based on what is desirable, not sound understanding of the opportunity using data.  How do we know if a desirable goal is achievable?   In many organizations, a numerical goal is “set in stone” when the project starts; failing to achieve the goal can have potential career repercussions.  While management tends to aim for aggressive targets, the project leaders are more concerned with the risk of failing to achieve them.  They prefer a more “realistic” target that can be met or even exceeded and negotiate with the sponsors to make the desirable target a “stretch” goal.  In the end, no one knows what the real improvement opportunity is.

Secondly, the practices create a mindset and behavior inconducive to the CI culture.  I have seen too many organizations’ Lean, Six Sigma, or other CI initiatives focus only on training and project execution.  They fail to build CI into their daily decisions, operations, and organization’s culture.  Quality improvement cannot be accomplished by projects alone – numerous incremental improvement opportunities exist in routine activities outside any project.  Projects, by their nature, are of a limited duration and are merely one mechanism or component of continuous improvement. Most improvement does not require a project.  Depending on projects to improve a process is a misunderstanding of CI, reinforces reactive (firefighting) behavior, and sends a wrong message to the organization that improvement is achieved through projects, and even worse, by specialists.

Creating a project with only a desired target leads to high uncertainty in project scope, resources, and timelines – a lot of waste. 

To be effective, a CI project should have a specific opportunity identified based on systematic analysis of the process.  Furthermore, the opportunity is realized through a project only if it requires additional and/or specialized resources; otherwise, the improvement should be carried out within routine activities by the responsible people in collaboration. 

What kind of systematic analysis should we perform to identify the opportunities?

One powerful analysis is related to process stability.  It requires our understanding of the nature and sources of variation in a process or system.  In a stable process, there is only common cause variation – its performance is predictable.  If a process is not stable, there exists special cause variation — its performance is not predictable.  Depending on process stability, the opportunity for improvement and the approach are distinct. 

The first question I ask about the goal of any improvement project is “Is the current performance unexpected?”  In other words, is the process performing as predicted?  No project should start without answering this question satisfactorily in terms of process stability.  Most often the answer is something like “We don’t really know but we want something better.”  If you don’t know where you are, how do you get to where you want to be?  This is a typical symptom of a project driven by the desirability rather than a specific opportunity based on analysis.  If the process stability was examined, most likely the first step toward improvement would be to understand and reduce process variation, which does not need a project.

For people familiar with Deming’s 14 Points for Management, I have said nothing new.  I merely touched point 11 “Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals.”  His original words¹ are illustrative.

“If you have a stable system, then there is no use to specify a goal.  You will get whatever the system will deliver.  A goal beyond the capability of the system will not be reached.”

“If you have not a stable system, then there is again no point in setting a goal.  There is no way to know what the system will produce: it has no capability.”

A goal statement that sounds SMART does not make a project smart.  A project devoid of true improvement opportunity achieves nothing but waste.  But if we follow the path shown by Deming, opportunities abound and improvement continues. 

1. Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis : Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1986.

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. 

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.