• Understand the reason to bring in the methodology and assess organization’s readiness (Starting Lean Six Sigma)
• Select the right projects and leaders and provide training and coaching (The First Six Sigma Project)
• Pay attention to organization’s management process and leadership behaviors (Revisiting the DMAIC Stage-gate Process)
• Ensure that process management is built as a foundation for improvement (Continuous Improvement Is More Than Projects)
• Avoid over-reliance on weeks-long classroom training to achieve results (Lean Six Sigma Training for Continuous Improvement)

In the last recommendation, I didn’t include an alternative approach because it required more elaboration.

The traditional Lean Six Sigma (LSS) deployment uses classroom training to teach concepts and tools to employees, who become Green Belts (GB) or Black Belt (BB) candidates.  The inexperienced GBs and/or BBs leading improvement projects often struggle to recall what they learned in the class and relate it to the real-world problems.  

What I think works better is project-based learning, in which the employees learn by participating in a job-related project led by an experienced CI professional.   The on-the-job hands-on learning is supplemented by expert coaching and self-paced learning. 

Assuming the organization is new to CI, I propose that it starts with a pilot project led by a CI veteran, who can guide the organization in a learning journey.  The journey will not only teach the team CI methodologies but also help the organization leaders discover many existing gaps, risks, issues, and opportunities, which leads to a better long-term strategy.  This CI leader has multiple roles — the coach to the organization leaders, the leader of the project, and the trainer of CI methodologies to the employees.

The proposed approach achieves multiple goals.

• Enable the organization to achieve optimal outcomes
• Build internal capabilities, including processes and skills
• Help develop a CI strategy and culture for the long term

The approach can include the following.

1. The senior CI sponsor (a top executive) recruits or retains a truly experienced CI leader (either an employee or consultant), with an explicit role of leading the pilot project, assessing organization, and helping develop its deployment strategy
2. The CI leader works with the sponsor to charter a suitable project, including clear expectations of their respective roles
3. The CI leader works with the sponsor and other managers to select project team members
4. The sponsor clearly communicates the role, responsibilities, and decision power of the CI leader to the entire organization
5. The sponsor personally demonstrates his/her commitment and holds the organization accountable
6. The CI leader leads the project and project team, giving just-in-time training as appropriate (Lean, Six Sigma, project management, change management, statistical methods, etc.)
7. The CI leader engages the team in using the CI concepts and tools in the project and demonstrates their value and limitations
8. Project members are given ample materials and opportunities to expand the learning on their own and have open access to coaching by the CI leader
9. The CI leader assesses the organization (e.g. organizational readiness, maturity, culture) and team members (e.g. skills, behavior, performance) throughout the entire project lifecycle
10. The CI leader provides analyses (e.g. SWOT) and recommendations to the sponsor, such as deployment strategy, high value projects, and high potential employees (i.e. future leaders)

This approach will avoid many common pitfalls in LSS training and deployment and take advantage of many opportunities provided by modern technology, such as online and on-demand learning.

The two limiting factors I see are a capable CI leader and a committed sponsor.

What other alternatives would you recommend?

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. 

• 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.