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• The project continues even after the evidence and analysis show that the project baseline or business case is no longer valid.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. 

A true Six Sigma project attempts to address a new or long-lasting problem that no one knows the real cause or has a clear solution for.   If the cause or solution is known, it is not a Six Sigma project – Just do it.  This uncertainty obviously makes some people less willing to initiate a Six Sigma project and/or can lead to unsuccessful projects.  In many ways, a Six Sigma project is similar to a high-risk R&D project.

How can we manage Six Sigma projects more effectively?

Assuming that the project is the right one for the organization and receives adequate resources and support, consider the following to reduce project delays and pitfalls.  (If the assumptions are not true, see my earlier post “The First Six Sigma Project” for discussion on some common Six Sigma deployment issues first.)

Train Project Management (PM) Skills

Many newly trained Black Belts (BBs) and Green Belts (GBs) lack sufficient project management skills.  Few received formal PM training, and their previous jobs did not require them to lead cross-functional teams.  A minimum of 2 days of PM fundamentals should be provided as a part of Six Sigma training or a separate program.  If the total training budget or days are limited, some more advanced or less frequently used Six Sigma contents (such as statistical tools) should be removed to accommodate the PM need. 

Having the basic PM knowledge is necessary for project success.  Particularly important, the BB/GB should be clear of their role as a project manager relative to the others in the organization.  The PM skills and experience will benefit the organization beyond the Six Sigma projects.  (See my earlier post “Project Managers are Managers” for suggestions for new project managers.) 

Apply Multi-generational Project Planning

Many project issues are a result of an overly large scope.  A Six Sigma project is already high risk without trying to solve too many problems at the same time.  Both the sponsors and BB/GBs tend to be overambitious and include multiple related metrics in the goal, which leads to diluted efforts and project delays.  If the project lasts more than 5-6 months, it is likely the original business case, assumptions, or metrics will no longer be true before they complete the solution due to external circumstances.  Often projects get cancelled before the benefits are achieved.

Instead, it is better to follow multi-generational project planning and break the goal into a series of smaller ones.  For example, two six-month projects sequentially are better than one 12-month project using the same resources.  Ideally, we follow the Pareto principle to achieve 80% of the goal in the first project and then the remaining in the second one.  In many cases, the second project becomes unnecessary because the business environment has changed by the time we finish the first.  This approach is similar to the Lean and Agile principles used in product development to manage uncertainty.

Use DMAIC Tollgates Properly

Most Six Sigma projects follow the DMAIC methodology, that has a tollgate for each of the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control phases.  Many organizations have a list of required and recommended deliverables for each phase and check them at the tollgate review.  Unfortunately, many sponsors and even coaches do not understand why and when a deliverable is required for a particular phase; their insistence on completing the deliverable before the tollgate can cause confusion and project delays. 

Too often organizations make the mistake of using a tollgate to evaluate if the BB/GB has done a good job following the DMAIC methodology.  The primary purpose of a tollgate should be to help the sponsor make the right and timely decisions, such as stopping the project or providing resources.  The tollgates should not be the only times when such decisions are made; many inexperienced project managers make the mistake of delaying decisions until the tollgates.  Organizations can avoid such mistakes by setting the right expectations upfront for the tollgates and decision process for all projects.

In summary, to manage the inherent risks in Six Sigma projects, the sponsor and the BB/GB have to be proactive and methodical in planning and execution.   DMAIC should be rigorous, not rigid.   

• 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.