Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Automation -- Is It Always a Struggle?

Earlier this month, I spoke to Marciano Hermo about his new book -- Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Automation: A Framework for Transforming Processes in the Digital Age -- which, through a structured integration cycle, real-world examples, and field-tested tools, demonstrates how improvement and technology reinforce, not replace, each other.

During our conversation, I asked him: "Why has it been a struggle to integrate Lean Six Sigma and automation?" Here is his complete answer:

The struggle to integrate Lean Six Sigma and automation is not because the two are incompatible. In fact, they are highly complementary. The difficulty is that organizations have often treated them as separate disciplines.

Lean Six Sigma traditionally sits with operational excellence, quality, or process improvement teams, while automation is commonly driven by IT, digital transformation, or technology groups. Each brings different expertise, priorities, measures of success, and even language. As a result, improvement and automation initiatives can proceed in parallel rather than as part of one transformation journey.

Another challenge is sequencing. Organizations are understandably attracted to the speed and scalability promised by automation. But automating a process before understanding and improving it can simply make waste, complexity, and poor decisions happen faster and at greater scale.

As I emphasize in the book, the objective should not be to automate a process simply because it can be automated. First, understand, challenge, simplify, and improve the process; then use technology where it can create additional, sustainable value.

There is also a human dimension. Lean Six Sigma and automation both change how work is performed. Integration therefore requires more than analytical tools and technology; it requires leadership alignment, cross-functional collaboration, new capabilities, and attention to how people experience and adopt change.

This is why I see Lean Six Sigma and automation not as competing approaches, but as complementary capabilities. Lean Six Sigma helps organizations determine what should change and why. Automation can then help scale, accelerate, and sustain the improved process.

Bringing the two together creates the opportunity to move beyond isolated improvement projects or technology deployments toward a more purposeful approach to process transformation.

Do you agree with Marciano's perspective? Have you tried integrating Lean Six Sigma and automation in your organization? What struggles did you face? 

The Gains Achieved from Performance-Improvement Initiatives -- What Prevents Organizations from Sustaining Them?

Just this month, Dr. Mohammad Al-Rifai published a new book entitled Sustaining Business Improvement Gains: A Framework for Embedding Continuous Improvement Into Your Organization’s Culture.  This book tackles a problem that every operations leader knows too well: organizations work hard to achieve improvement -- but far too many struggle to keep it.

When I spoke with Mohammad this past week, I asked him, "What most often prevents organizations from sustaining their gains?" He quickly pointed to a pattern he has seen across industries for more than two decades. Here is his complete answer:

The daily pressure of operations creeps back in… enthusiasm fades… small deviations go unchecked. Before long, the hard‑earned improvements slip away.

The reasons are remarkably consistent.

• Leadership attention drifts. After initial wins, leaders often shift focus to new priorities. Without visible, ongoing commitment, improvement becomes a “project” rather than a way of operating.
• Culture doesn’t evolve. Teams may adopt new processes, but if underlying behaviors and mindsets don’t change, old habits quietly return.
• Communication loses clarity. Messages become inconsistent, progress isn’t visible, and people lose sight of why the change mattered in the first place.
• Silos persist. Improvement requires shared ownership. When functions retreat to their corners, gains stall.
• Capabilities plateau. Teams may know how to execute improvements, but not how to sustain them. Confidence fades, and problem‑solving becomes reactive instead of proactive.
• Operational discipline weakens. Reviews, routines, and metrics are inconsistently followed. Standards drift. Issues go unaddressed until they become crises.
• Knowledge disappears. Lessons learned aren’t captured or shared, forcing teams to relearn the same problems.
• Recognition is sporadic. When people don’t feel their efforts matter, motivation declines -- and so does sustainability.

As Mohammad Al‑Rifai emphasizes, sustaining improvement “is not about luck -- it’s about building a system that embeds continuous improvement into the organization’s everyday rhythm.”

Do leaders and practitioners reading this post see these same barriers in their organizations? If so, what have you done to overcome them?

Do Oil and Gas Industry Professionals Need "Personal Branding"?

Just about a week ago, Yogashri Pradhan published a new book entitled Fueling Impact: How to Improve Personal Branding in the Oil and Gas Industry, which helps engineers, operators, executives, and emerging talent in the oil and gas industry navigate the challenge of visibility in a traditionally hierarchical sector. She reframes personal branding not as vanity, but as a form of leadership.

When I spoke with Yogashri recently, I asked her: "Why is personal branding so important for professionals in the oil and gas industry?" Here is her full answer:

Personal branding is important because we do not live in a meritocratic world. Being your own advocate is just as important as the quality of your work produced in the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry is well known for promoting putting your head down, working, and letting the work speak for itself. In fact, many tout how this method of having the work speak for itself leads to becoming leaders in the industry. Unfortunately, not all work is created visibly, especially when comparing those who use social media and speak up in meetings versus those who do not. Those who are not seen or remembered are forgotten and not considered for positions they would otherwise be fit for. 

To increase visibility of your work, you must develop a unique value proposition both in person and externally. In-person brand building entails relationship building and knowledge sharing, which leads to credibility and trust. External brand building entails showcasing knowledge and helping others with your experiences, which also builds credibility and personability. Personal branding in the oil and gas industry also increases the chance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in leadership positions because, regardless of gender, having the necessary skills to showcase work and value increases representation in the industry.

What do you think of Yogashri's perspective on personal branding? Are there oil and gas industry professionals reading this who have considered this? What do you feel are the pros and cons?

The Problem With Problem-Solving

Just this past week, Seamus Maguire publsihed a book entitled Finding Fact Before Fixing: How Business Professionals Can Avoid False Assumptions When Solving Problems, which explores the reasons, biases, and blind spots that result in business professionals making assumptions and jumping to conclusions during problem-solving.

During a recent conversation with Seamus, I asked him: "What are some of the common mistakes business leaders make when problem-solving?" Here is his answer:

It’s my opinion that assumptions, not complexity, are the biggest obstacle to effective problem solving today.

There are a myriad of tools and frameworks that we can follow, from DMAIC to A3 and everything in between. However, even when these tools and frameworks are followed and we have the right people, problem-solving activities can still fall short.

The issue lies not in the tools themselves but rather in how people are hardwired to focus on fast results.

This creates a subconscious tendency to accept our best guesses as facts. We regularly skip the part of an investigation that requires experimental work or going to the gemba to observe.

This tendency is so subtle that we often don’t even realise we are doing it. Often, the potential causes feel so right and are so logical that it seems a waste of time to challenge them through experimentation.

The thing is, we will always be wrong more often than we are right in problem solving, and that’s ok! We can’t think our way out of a problem; if we could, well, it wouldn’t be a problem.

The alternative takes a little more work; it involves creating a way to test our hypothesis so that we learn more about the process/product in question until we reach the point where our knowledge encompasses the problem. At this point, it is no longer a problem.

That’s why true root causes often seem so obvious in hindsight. Until we have the knowledge, the issue is super complex. Then, once we gain the required knowledge, the problem becomes simple and mundane overnight, and you scratch your head, asking why it took so long to figure it out.

So next time you are asking for an update on a problem-solving activity, instead of asking ‘Have you got to root cause yet?’, or, ‘What’s the root cause?’, maybe ask, ‘What have you experimentally ruled out so far?’, or, ‘How did you confirm that?’ This will shift the focus to how problem-solving is conducted, rather than encouraging the team to accept assumptions as fact to achieve a quick result.

What do you think of Seamus's perspective? Do these types of mistakes happen in your organization? What have you done to rectify them? 

Corporate Trainers -- What Are the Most Common Mistakes They Make?

At the beginning of this month, Truett Black published an interesting new book entitled Training Zen: How to Build a Sustainable and Rewarding Career in Corporate Training and Facilitation. This book is a comprehensive guide to the knowledge, beliefs, skills, and practices that consistently bring outstanding results in training workshops.

Truett Black is a veteran designer of high-impact learning experiences with over two decades of experience working with multinational companies across Asia, North America, and Europe. He has trained and mentored hundreds of trainers, helping them refine their craft and elevate their impact.

When I spoke with Truett this past week, I asked him: "What are the most common mistakes corporate trainers make?" Here is his response:

These mistakes aren't limited to beginners. I've seen experienced trainers make them, and I've made every one of them myself.

The first is treating training as a performance rather than a service. It's easy to focus on how we're coming across -- our delivery, our slides, whether people think we're credible -- instead of focusing on what participants actually need. The moment we shift from "How am I doing?" to "How are they doing?" is when real facilitation begins.

A second mistake is sticking too tightly to the scripted content. When you're tasked with delivering predesigned materials, it's tempting to think your job is to deliver those materials. It isn't. Your job is still to serve the people in the room. That means being willing to alter the materials to fit their actual needs -- and the only way to know what those needs are is to ask. What are their challenges? What questions do they have? What concerns are they bringing to the topic? You can't throw the content out entirely, but you can and should adapt it so that it connects to what's real for them.

Third, trainers frequently neglect their own energy management. We overcommit, overprepare, and underestimate the physical toll of being "on" in front of a room. I write about this in the book because I've lived it -- knowing better doesn't protect you. Disciplined self-management does. Without it, even seasoned trainers end up running on fumes, and the quality of their facilitation suffers.

Finally, too many trainers underinvest in relationships -- with clients, with fellow practitioners, with mentors. This profession rewards trust and long-term partnership far more than it rewards individual brilliance. The sooner we recognize that, the more sustainable and rewarding our careers become.

Do the corporate trainers reading this post agree with Truett's perspective? Are there other common mistakes that you feel should be included here?

When Managers Can't Collaborate Effectively -- What Is the Main Cause?

Earlier this month, Andrew S. Humphries and Linda McComie published a book entitled Why Managers Don't Collaborate: Revealing the Myths and Truths. The purpose of this book is to dispel the baseless myths that are preventing managers in organizations from moving forward and reaping the benefits of collaboration. 

When I spoke with Andrew this past week, I asked him: "What has been the main cause preventing managers from collaborating effectively?" Here is his complete answer:

The main cause preventing managers from collaborating effectively is their belief that no special arrangements, skills, or structures are needed to collaborate. Our book makes this point repeatedly and forcefully.

Across the underlying research, managers consistently claim they are collaborating, but in practice, they behave exactly as they always have: “they have claimed they are collaborating, but in reality, it was not happening,” and this false confidence forms the First Big Myth. Managers assume that existing processes, governance, and attitudes will somehow deliver collaborative outcomes, even though these were never designed for joint working.

The Second Big Myth reinforces the problem: managers “believe that they do not need to make special arrangements to collaborate successfully.” They fail to recognize collaboration as a professional discipline requiring investment, leadership, relationship management structures, and new ways of working. This leads to avoidance, excuses, and a reliance on habitual practices that undermine joint performance.

The book explores the deeper drivers behind this misconception:

• Short‑termism and management myopia, where immediate operational pressures overshadow long‑term value creation.
• Organizational resistance to change and fear of losing control, especially in governance-heavy environments.
• Vested interests in functions like sales, commercial, and finance that resist new ways of working.
• Over‑reliance on technology as a substitute for relationship management.
• Lack of champions and leadership, leaving alliances without direction or accountability.

In conclusion, the real fault lies with senior leaders “who do not understand the power of collaborative management,” leaving managers unsupported and unprepared to adopt the additional responsibilities collaboration demands.

In short, the main cause is a pervasive misunderstanding of what collaboration requires, leading managers to believe they are already doing it -- or that it is unnecessary -- while failing to invest in the structures, skills, and leadership that make collaboration succeed.

Do you agree with Andrew's perspective that managers fail to collaborate effectively because they do not understand that collaboration requires a distinct professional discipline? That is, a discipline that demands long‑term thinking, structural investment, behavioral change, and dedicated leadership, and instead relies on myths, assumptions, and excuses that keep them locked into traditional, siloed management practices.

If so, have you seen managers make this mistake in your company? Were these mistakes corrected?

New Business Leaders -- What Are Their Common Mistakes?

Back in February, Julian M. Allen published a book entitled Operational Leadership Uncensored: Real Talk for Burgeoning Manufacturing Leaders, which is geared to young business leaders who are seeking to accomplish real results, greater responsibilities, and career advancement. This book presents both fundamental and sophisticated leadership approaches, including occasional moments of levity, to advance career management and interpersonal competencies for emerging leaders. These principles transcend generational boundaries and maintain their relevance throughout the evolution of organizational leadership.

When I spoke with Julian this month and told him I'd like to include his thoughts in a blog post, I asked him, "What are the most common mistakes new business leaders make?" Here is his complete response:

Hey there, current and future leaders, especially those stepping into manufacturing or operations roles. I’ve led through four facility startups, multiple expansions, and high-stakes turnarounds across 17 sites. Trust me, I’ve watched plenty of talented new bosses flame out fast. The crazy part? Most of their mistakes are 100% avoidable if you catch them early.

Here are the three that show up most often (and that I tackle head-on in Operational Leadership Uncensored):

1. Chasing personal glory instead of team wins. New leaders often obsess over the title, their power, or the biggest paycheck. They become “chaos creators”-- the ones who care more about their own trophy case than lifting their crew.

2. Falling into the classic “three-year shuffle." Year one: lots of big talk, zero results. Year two: blame everyone else. Year three: grab credit for the smallest win and jump ship before the wheels fall off. It’s predictable… and preventable.

3. Tanking credibility through poor communication or “spinning.” Bad breath, jargon-heavy emails, or stretching the truth to look good -- any of these kills trust instantly. Once your team starts fact-checking everything you say, you’re done.

Here’s the straight truth I share in the book:  

“Here’s the secret sauce of leadership: it’s not about you. Seriously. If you’re more worried about your own trophy case than your crew’s wins, you’re toast.”

Leadership isn’t about being the smartest person in the room; it’s about being a decent human with real empathy, clear communication, and the humility to put your people first. My book gives you the uncensored playbook: real stories from the floor, simple tools, and reflection exercises so you can skip the rookie mistakes and start winning from day one.

Ready to lead like the boss your team actually deserves? Grab Operational Leadership Uncensored and turn those hard lessons into your unfair advantage.

What’s one mistake you’ve seen (or made) that still makes you cringe? Drop it in the comments -- I'll read every one. Let’s learn together.

What do you think of Julian's perspective? Do you agree with his assessment of common mistakes? Did you make any of these early in your career?

Usability‑Engineering Projects: What Are the Common Misunderstandings?

At the beginning of this month, Ilkka Juuso and Ilpo Pöyhönen published a book entitled Medical-Device Usability: Human Factors for Medical Device Development, which simplifies the process regarding the application of usability to medical devices for new developers by providing a thought-out walkthrough of what is involved and how the expectations from the essential standards affect their work and why.

When I spoke with Ilkka this past week, I asked him, "What are the most common misunderstandings developers encounter when starting a usability‑engineering project?" Here is his complete answer:

By far the easiest mistake to make is to think that usability in medical devices is just about an interface that is pleasant to look at and use. That will be a part of it, but far more important is the safety of that interface. An aesthetically appealing user interface is nice, an interface with all the controls in intuitive places is a great start, but what actually matters the most is that it is difficult to use the interface in the wrong way, leading to real harm to patients. That may sound counterintuitive from a general usability perspective – after all, usability typically talks about the ease of all use – but safety and the safe use of a device really is paramount when it comes to health. In an optimal situation, of course, all these rings align so that a safe interface is also intuitive and appealing, and thus hopefully even safer to use. In our book, we approach usability engineering from the viewpoint of safety, but also bring in lessons from the field of general usability engineering, which is useful to a discussion of medical devices.

The second mistake to avoid is keeping usability engineering as an isolated activity, run once and then forgotten about, without much impact on the development or maintenance of the medical device. In the book, we show how usability connects to the overall quality management and risk management activities of the organization, and how usability can actually inform the whole path from an initial product concept to a finished device and beyond. Our message here is that usability engineering is not just something you have to do, it’s something you should want to do because of how it can add to your knowledge of your user, use environment, and the use of your device – and bring benefits to all of these.

For those working in the medical device industry, do you agree with Ilkka's perspective regarding common mistakes? In your organization, does usability connect directly to quality and risk management?

Do Managers Truly Understand How to Measure Critical Success Factors (CSFs)?

Earlier this month, I spoke with James H. Dobbins about his latest book, Critical Success Factors: How to Effectively Identify, Measure, and Apply CSFs, which equips managers with a practical framework to accurately identify, measure, and apply their critical success factors (CSFs). Unlike previous efforts that relied on broad surveys and statistical analyses intended to generate generalized lists of CSFs, this approach honors the foundational definition of CSFs and provides actionable guidance tailored to each manager’s unique context.

During our conversation, I asked James, "What are the biggest mistakes managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs)?" Here is his complete answer:

The biggest mistake managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs) is failing to understand what CSFs are in the first place. Managers turn to the results of research by others, projects often done by academics in the pursuit of an advanced degree. The research objective is to produce a list of generalized CSFs.  Once the list is published, the research is completed, the degree is granted, and the researcher goes on with their life. No measures are suggested. Many researchers worldwide, all with the same objective, have published different sets of CSFs. There is no guidance on which list to use. The biggest problem is that all the research was conducted using surveys of large numbers of managers, and there has never been a valid list of CSFs produced from surveys. Using surveys to identify CSFs has several fundamental flaws.  Some, noted in the Introduction to the book, are:

• The assumption that project managers know how to identify their CSFs,
• The failure to recognize that CSFs are contextually relevant to the manager, and therefore, the elimination of anything not generalizable, is contrary to the definition of CSF.
• The failure to understand that Critical Success Factors are, in fact, critical for a specific manager, and that all must be done well.  CSFs are not something you pick from a menu, like a survey result, hoping you chose the right ones.
• The absence of any longitudinal studies. There was no follow-up with any of the managers surveyed to validate the study's results or to determine whether and how they utilized the CSFs identified in the survey.
• There was no attempt to identify measures for the identified CSFs to help managers track their success in meeting the CSFs.  

Does your company actively use and apply critical success factors (CSFs) in its operations? Does your organization rely on surveys to determine which CSFs to prioritize? And do you agree with the mistakes James H. Dobbins identifies in this area?

Has Navigating Change Become More Difficult?

Mitchell Kusy co-authored a book with Mike Valentine and Gilles Benoit entitled The Playbook for Leading Change: Proven Strategies for Success, which was published this December. This book explains how leaders continually receive multiple messages on how to lead successful organizational change. The confusion created by these multiple messages has contributed to a high failure rate in change initiatives, as organizations struggle with watered-down approaches that offer generic solutions instead of tailored, practical guidance. This book functions as a compendium of simple, easy-to-implement change strategies that work.

When I spoke with Mitch earlier this month, I asked him, "Why has navigating change become more difficult? What are the major challenges?" Here is his complete answer:

Ever tried spreading peanut butter on toast? You know how it goes. Every inch gets the same layer, whether it needs it or not. That’s the way some organizations approach change: a one-size-fits-all method that doesn’t consider the unique textures of the situation. But change isn’t toast, and a blanket approach rarely works.  We created this book with three goals in mind: 

• Beat the odds for change success. Too many change efforts fail. We help you succeed. Even in unfamiliar change territory, we help you understand what's needed, why, and how.
•  Cut through the “noise” of change with confidence. Change can be messy. Let’s bring some clarity to the chaos and give you the confidence to tackle it.
• Keep it practical with strong evidence. No heavy theories—just real, research-backed strategies that we distill into everyday practices you can actually use. 

One of the many experiences we have had helping organizations and teams lead change is that leaders sometimes bypass three important dimensions of change: 

• Self as the Instrument for Change. How can each person’s commitment fuel success? 
• Team as the Instrument for Change. What’s the team’s role in making the change happen? 
• Organization as the Instrument for Change. How well is the change aligned with the system that needs to carry it? 

Some researchers have demonstrated a 60% to 70% failure rate; others have 50% to 75%. “Why does change fail so often?” Sometimes, leaders don’t realize how complex change really is. Other times, they may fail to link their big vision to real execution. Maybe they forget to involve the people who need to bring the change to life. In some cases, they include people too late. And often, they miss the chance to connect change efforts with larger business goals. Sometimes leaders focus so heavily on the change itself that they neglect the transition people must go through to make it work. These are just some of the many issues that fueled our book. 

In the Playbook, we share how to address the four major change challenges leaders face:

• Organizational and team transitions/restructures. 
• Strategic alignment.  
• Team development and the capacity for change. 
• Work culture change, especially toxic work cultures. 

What has been your experience with change management and team building? Do you agree with Mitchell's points? What were some of the mistakes you saw with the initiative within your organization?