Change Management and Continuous Improvement -- Is There a Disconnect Between the Two?

This past month, Kyle B. Stone published an interesting book entitled The Change Agent’s Field Guide: Mastering the Intersections of Change Management and Continuous Improvement, which helps anyone involved in leading continuous improvement within an organization better understand when to apply the change management techniques necessary to achieve successful outcomes. Many continuous improvement efforts fail because those leading changes do not recognize when to pause and evaluate critical intersections needing change management tools. This book provides clear guidance on when to pause, what to do, and how to navigate these intersections successfully.

When I spoke with Kyle this month, I asked him, "Why is there a disconnect between change management and continuous improvement?” Here is his detailed answer:

My premise on why continuous improvement efforts sometimes “stick” and other times do not is that many leaders of these efforts fail to understand the importance of change management and the critical intersections between people and process improvement.  My desire with this book is to offer a guide for leaders of continuous improvement and how to anticipate, manage, and measure change while engaging in continuous improvement. There are seven intersections that I describe that help close the disconnect between change management and continuous improvement.

1. Develop systems thinking skills
2. Triage Change
3. Make a plan
4. Manage the handoffs
5. Communication
6. Counselor
7. Political engagements and interactions

Managing these critical intersections is key to successful outcomes for planned or unplanned change initiatives. My intent is not to address all the various types of externally managed continuous improvement methodologies since most externally managed “accreditations” are based on alignment with standards generally designed to drive continuous improvement within the organization. The goal of this book is to provide a foundation of knowledge in both change management and typical continuous improvement methods so leaders of change can navigate the nuances and triage the challenges typically encountered whenever you are asking people to change the way they perform their work, which is a common outcome of most continuous improvement efforts. 

Following the foundation-building chapters, examples of how to identify and manage the intersections between those affected by change and the continuous improvement efforts are provided, assisting the leaders with anticipating and addressing critical junctures. Ignoring these intersections and plowing forward is a common failure during many continuous improvement efforts, often resulting in a lack of engagement, resistance, and sometimes sabotage. 

What do you think of Kyle's perspective on the relationship between continuous improvement initiatives and change management? For those who have led Lean and continuous improvement efforts in your organization, how was change management addressed? Did it improve buy-in and understanding among colleagues? 

Can Green Six Sigma Help and Enhance Sustainability and Climate-Change Initiatives?

This past September, Ron Basu published a book entitled The Green Six Sigma Handbook:  A Complete Guide for Lean Six Sigma Practitioners and Managers, which details how the benefits of a combined Lean and Six Sigma initiative can indeed encompass sustainability and climate-change concerns. 

I spoke with Ron this past week and asked him specifically: "How does Green Six Sigma help and enhance sustainability and climate-change initiatives?" Here is his complete response:

If nothing tangible is done climate change will worsen and its impact on our planet will be catastrophic. We have many climate change initiatives, such as clean energy and retrofitting houses. There are also many global initiatives sponsored by the United Nations, such as several COP (Conference of Parties) conferences going on for several years. We need breakthrough technology and breakthrough change methodology. We have the power of invention to assist these initiatives but that takes time. We have to use all our available tools now. Six Sigma is such a tool for breakthrough change methodology. The tools and approaches of Six Sigma when focused and adapted primarily to climate change demands get Green Six Sigma. The approach is underpinned by three tenets: fitness for the purpose of climate change, fitness for holistic Lean processes, and fitness for environmental sustainability.

The importance of climate change or global warming, if you prefer it, cannot be doubted. All land areas of our planet are experiencing heat waves, frequent storms, flooding, landslides, and wildfires. As a result, there are many international and national climate change initiatives in hand, but the outcomes are not always sustainable. We also need a catalyst and a disciplined process to make it happen. This is where Green Six Sigma comes in.

Green Six Sigma combines and extends the tools, techniques, and processes of both Lean and Six Sigma to customize them for climate change initiatives. As a specific example, the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) cycle has been extended in Green Six Sigma to DMAICS with the inclusion of Sustain. The tools and techniques of Sustain ensure and enhance both the sustainability of the outcomes of climate change initiatives and the sustainability of environmental standards. It is vital we harness all our tools and resources to regenerate the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic and Ukraine conflict and implement climate change initiatives for the survival of the planet.

A number of real-life case examples have been included in The Green Six Sigma Handbook to support how sustainability can be enhanced. This book is a hands-on single-source reference of tools, techniques, and processes integrating both Lean and Six Sigma. I show how to apply the principles of Lean Six Sigma and FIT SIGMA to the practical realities of businesses of all sectors and walk readers through the application of tools and techniques in the environmental context. The uniqueness of the Green Six Sigma approach is that its outcomes lead to the sustainability of both processes and environmental standards of climate change.

What do you think of Ron Basu's perspective? Do you think Lean Six Sigma initiatives can encompass sustainability? Has your Lean Sigma process evolved to include climate-change concerns? 

How Should Your Company Pursue and Achieve Innovation?

This past April, Michael Parent published a book entitled The Lean Innovation Cycle: A Multi-Disciplinary Framework for Designing Value with Lean and Human-Centered Design, which addresses what many companies are facing regarding pursuing innovation. His book addresses these concerns by introducing a new multidisciplinary framework for both thinking about and pursuing innovation. By taking key concepts from the quality management practices of Lean and Six Sigma, the framework augments these tools and disciplines by incorporating other problem-solving and design techniques, including Human-Centered Design. The result is a view of innovation that many business leaders will find fits nicely into their existing paradigm of strategy and operational discipline.

When I recently spoke with Michael, I asked him: “How should companies pursue and achieve innovation now?” Here is his complete answer:

Innovation seems to be on the tips of everyone’s tongues. Search social media and you’ll find an ethos of innovation behind every post. But the popularity of innovation and entrepreneurial thinking on social media has done damage to how businesses and industry incumbents should think about and pursue innovation. Especially in a world buffeted by global disruptions – chip shortages, inflation, supply chain issues, pandemics – just to name a few, companies need to have a greater understanding of what role innovation plays in their business and the different ways they adapt to a dynamic organizational landscape.

Regarding innovation, the biggest opportunities for businesses are to pursue an innovative approach styled after the principles of Quality Management. Organizations can mitigate their risks of disruption by holistically evaluating their existing processes, and shoring up gaps that put them in jeopardy. It might not be sexy, but improving supply chain reliability, capability, and in-process quality has enumerable benefits for most businesses, from increasing profit margin, to reducing expenses, to driving towards operational consistency across their entire value chain.

Equally important is how businesses should avoid pursuing innovation. Generally speaking, if you’re anything but a new start-up business, you should stay away from grandiose ideas of disruptive innovation and industry-altering advancements. These promise exceedingly high profits and growth but fail to materialize due to excruciatingly low chances of success, high resource demands, and even internal organizational disruption to the existing business.

A business incumbent has already been successful in their industry. Rather than abandoning the history and tradition of the firm through radical, disruptive innovation, a business ought to re-evaluate its existing value propositions through the lens of a fresh perspective. Amidst global disruptions that have mainly affected business operations (and left the products and marketing themselves untouched) the principles of quality management, Lean, and Six Sigma is an excellent framework to begin this endeavor.

What do you think of Michael’s perspective? What role does innovation play in your company? How is your company pursuing innovation? What have been the pitfalls?

Can Six Sigma Help Improve HR Processes?

In 2021, prolific author Daniel T. Bloom published the second edition of his book entitled Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma, which describes exactly what excellence in human resources (HR) means and outlines dozens of proven approaches as well as a hierarchy of the exact steps required to achieve it. It illustrates the Six Sigma methodology from the creation of a project to its successful completion. At each stage, it describes the specific tools currently available and provides examples of organizations that have used Six Sigma within HR to improve their organizations. 

When I spoke with Daniel this past month, I asked him: "How does Six Sigma actually help improve HR processes?" Here is his complete answer:

The Human Capital Management field today is faced with a dilemma. It is a dilemma that will determine whether there is a human Capital Management field going forward. 

Too many of my colleagues are stuck in a transactional field which means that they see their role as that of the organizational fireman. There to purely put out fires. However, there is another view that Six Sigma encourages and that is the role of being the organizational thinker.

Consider the reactions from two HR professionals who have seen the Six-Sigma approach and have had phenomenal results. The HR Manager of an electronics organization stated that Six Sigma made her rethink the way she viewed HR -- it empowers you to want to make immediate and sustainable improvements to your organization. Using the strategies discussed in the book, she was able to reduce the average time to fill an open position by 58 percent and the cost of hire by 81 percent. The other view is from the VP of HR for a major trade association who told us that the material in the book (and the accompanying course) inspired her to think about additional training and professional practice of these concepts. She had already put some of the key concepts behind the DMAIC method to work.

The ultimate goal of Six Sigma and its associated tools is to enable you to see and feel the problem through the use of logical thinking processes and then to create a new normal by changing the corporate culture accordingly.

What do you think of Daniel's perspective regarding Six Sigma and the HR department? Have you incorporated Six Sigma techniques in your HR departments? If so, have the results been positive?

What is the Main Purpose for Combining and Implementing the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma?

Back in May, Bob Sproull and Matt Hutcheson published a book entitled The New Beginning: A Business Novel on How to Successfully Implement the Combination of The Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma to Drive Profit Margins. Essentially, this book teaches the reader how to successfully combine and implement the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma to produce results that many companies only dream of having. It covers a variety of different company types including manufacturing and healthcare.

When I spoke with Bob in July, I asked him: "What is the main purpose for combining and implementing the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma?" Here is his full answer:

The main purpose for combining and implementing the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma is quite simply to maximize a company’s profitability.  Each of the three individual components serves a completely different purpose, but it all starts with the Theory of Constraints. The Theory of Constraints provides the needed focus and leverage point, meaning that the primary reason many improvement initiatives fail to deliver hoped-for profit levels is that many times they are focused on the wrong area of the system. It matters not whether the system is a manufacturing or service system, because each type of system has a constraining factor that encumbers the output of the system.  While the Theory of Constraints locates the correct focal point for improvement, Lean works to reduce waste, while Six Sigma reduces and controls variation. Both waste and variation encumber systems and therefore reduce the system output, which translates into less than desired profitability. By combining the Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma, maximum profitability will be achieved.

The Theory of Constraints offers so many different tools and techniques that are completely different from many continuous improvement professionals utilize.  In the book The New Beginning, I insert these tools as part of the business novel format.  One of the tools is a different form of accounting known as Throughput Accounting.  It’s not a replacement for traditional Cost Accounting, but it is used throughout The New Beginning, as a way to make better financial decisions.  When I learned this form of accounting, it changed my entire approach to maximizing profitability.  While traditional Cost Accounting emphasizes that the key to profitability is through how much money can be saved, Throughput Accounting teaches the reader that the real key to improving profits is through how much money can be made. The difference between saving money and making money is profoundly different. In The New Beginning, I use numerous examples of how to use Throughput Accounting to drive profit margins upward.

Another valuable addition that can be realized by using the Theory of Constraints is the method used to order parts and raw materials. While most companies use something referred to as the Min/Max System, the Theory of Constraints utilizes something referred to as the TOC Replenishment Method, and the results are dramatically different!  In The New Beginning, I go to great lengths to explain this methodology and the results are dramatically different when compared to the Min/Max System.  By using the TOC Replenishment Method, companies can reduce their inventory by about fifty percent while virtually eliminating stock-outs!  Imagine a company being able to reduce their on-hand inventory by fifty percent and not worrying about stock-outs of needed parts and/or raw materials. Think about what that would do to a company’s profitability!

Another Theory of Constraints tool brought forth in The New Beginning is a logic tool known as The Goal Tree.  The Goal Tree is an important tool that can be used to develop a company’s improvement plan. In The New Beginning, I have provided examples from two distinctly different companies.  One company is a manufacturing company while the other one is oriented in healthcare. That is a series of completely different hospital types. It matters not what type of company attempts to use The Goal Tree, because of the logical method it uses to construct it. The method developed in this book is first, the creation of The Goal Tree which has an overall Goal at the top, followed by critical success factors need to achieve the company’s goal, and finally necessary conditions needed to achieve each of the critical success factors. When the Goal Tree is completed, it can then be used to assess the status of each of the Goal Tree entities. When the assessment is complete, The Goal Tree is then used to develop an improvement plan. As is demonstrated in The New Beginning, The Goal Tree is an important tool used to develop a company’s improvement plan.

The New Beginning was written as a sequel to another business novel I wrote entitled The Secret to Maximizing Profitability and both have been well received by the readers. The good news is, both books are centered on completely different company types, but in both books, I go into great detail on how to combine the three initiatives, namely Theory of Constraint, Lean, and Six Sigma.  It is my hope that both books will be enjoyed by all readers, but not only enjoyed, but also used to maximize your company’s profitability. I co-authored this book with Matt Hutcheson who is such a valuable contributor to the book’s success!

What do you think of Bob's perspective? Have you tried to combine Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma in your organization? If so, what results did you expect and what did you receive? 

Why Must There Be a "New Normal" for Leadership?

John Dyer published a very interesting book in September entitled The Façade of Excellence: Defining a New Normal of Leadership that challenges most conventional thoughts about leadership and its role within organizations. His book contends that leadership actually has many dimensions and several definitions, and it explores four different styles of leadership: The Crisis Leader, The Idea Gathering Leader, The Team Forming Leader, and The Empowerment Leader.

I spoke with John recently and asked him: “Why must there be a ‘new normal’ for leadership?” Here is his full response:

It has been nearly four decades since the NBC documentary “If Japan Can… Why Can’t We?” was first aired.  This program was a massive wake-up call and prompted the creation of initiatives such as Total Quality Management, Lean, and Six Sigma.  While some progress has been made, most organizations, especially outside of manufacturing, are still using old, outdated management practices such as fear, management by objectives, and hierarchical organizational structures.  

Recently, I asked on social media the question: “If you had one word to describe the main ingredient to sustain and expand an improvement initiative, what would it be?”  A word cloud was created to show the most popular results.

Take notice of the two largest words: Leadership and Commitment.  These were followed by: Culture and Buy-in.  You may also notice words like: Engagement, People, Communication, Trust, and Vision.  These are all words associated with questions such as:  “How do we improve our organization’s culture?  Why won’t my leaders fully and wholeheartedly commit to something that seems so obvious to many of us trying to make a difference?  What will it take to get my boss to fully buy-in to allowing teams of employees the opportunity to improve the way things are done (and at the same time, how do we get the employees to trust us and fully buy-in as well)?”

It is interesting that ‘Leadership’ and ‘Commitment’ had similar results.  This reminds me of the old joke that when making breakfast, the hen is involved but the pig is committed.  Commitment means completely tearing down all of the old ways and defining a new ‘normal’ of how things are done at every level within the organization.  Unfortunately, many managers think that it is sufficient to do the bare minimum and try to fake their way to achieving excellence.  They might allow a couple of teams to be formed (with no real authority to change anything) or spend some money on training (but not attending the classes themselves since they are so busy or it is beneath them) or ask their employees for ideas on how to improve (with little to no resources dedicated to implementing these ideas).  All they are doing is creating a flimsy façade of excellence that crumbles at the first sign of trouble. 

A new definition of leadership is required at all levels, from the Board of Directors to Executives to Supervisors.  My book builds the case for change and presents a step-by-step roadmap that leads to collaboration that will put your organization on the path toward achieving excellence.

What do you think of John's perspective? Do the management problems John details here exist in your organization?

Lean and Higher Education -- Can It Work?

In August, I had the opportunity to speak with Stephen Yorkstone shortly after the publication of his new book, Global Lean for Higher Education: A Themed Anthology of Case Studies, Approaches, and Tools. Stephen's book reflects the state-of-the-art in the global practical application of Lean for higher education. It demonstrates the diverse applications of Lean in universities inspiring others to deeply engage with Lean thinking in their own unique context and to drive successful, sustainable, Lean work. 

During our conversation, I asked him: "Where is the application of Lean most prevalent in higher education? Where is it most effective?" Here is his complete answer:

Universities are curious places to think about as Lean organizations. They are connected to every industry, while being idiosyncratic all of their own.

Given that, as you might expect, there isn't one clear pattern to the kind of universities that successfully apply Lean. There are institutions with under 10,000 students making a big difference with Lean, and universities with tens of thousands of students equally making advances.

There are clusters of practice however. Where I live in Scotland, a large proportion of the universities have Lean type work going on, there is a growing momentum behind Lean in the United Kingdom higher education, a large and highly influential group of Australian practitioners, and there are examples of great and well established practice in North America and across Europe.

The pattern of growth of Lean in universities seems to spread organically, from a few pioneers outwards. It's fair to say not all activity to embed Lean in higher education is successful, however, and it can be challenging to estimate this. The existence of a named "Lean" team while on the one hand is clear evidence of a deep organizational commitment of one kind, it on the other hand doesn't guarantee that that university is itself highly Lean. Conversely, the absence of such a team doesn't indicate a university is not in fact advanced in applying Lean thinking.

There are a number of maturity models that look to solve this problem and allow institutions to benchmark against each other. However, given the higher education sector is hugely diverse, simplistic comparisons can be unhelpful. "Paralysis by analysis" is a real risk. Perhaps a practical approach is better.

It's a practical approach that is behind the successful Lean applications in universities. We see use of classic lean tools like visual display boards and team huddles, rapid improvement type activity, lean linked with project boards and technology. However, it's not one way of "doing" lean that works in universities, but "being" Lean that works. Lean in higher education works where institutions don't slavishly adhere to one particular tool or product; but rather when they reflect deeply on their purpose, take action to improve, learn, and always do so with respect for people.

And isn't this the right thing to focus on, regardless of the industry we work in?

Lean in higher education is only growing, and it has already been applied both to administrative and academic services. What do you think of Stephen's perspective? Do you feel that Lean can have a significant and measurable impact in higher education?

Combining Statistical Design and Statistical Control -- Can it Work?

Kieron Dey recently published a book titled Competitive Innovation and Improvement: Statistical Design and Control, which explains how to combine two widely known statistical methods — statistical design and statistical control — in a manner that can solve any business, government, or research problem quickly with sustained results.I spoke with Kieron last month and asked him: "Why did you decide to write this book and what makes it unique?" Here is is his complete answer:

I first got the idea about separating tiny signals from large amounts of noise from time spent in radar design, and I wondered why similar was not much used in industry to solve problems. Where statistical design was used, it tended to be on a small scale and not much in processes involving lots of people.

The idea to combine statistical design and control came from a book on survey sampling. This fusion was controversial for years among professionals, and for no reason. Everything used is in the literature.

“Intent-to-treat" is also used throughout (which means, roughly, allowing an element of laissez-faire to get real world results, not forced ones that don't hold longer term).

Simultaneous design (where more than one design runs at once, overlaid) was added in 2012. The simultaneous designs have been important in cross-channel optimization in retail and in complex healthcare improvements. This was the last addition as the theory was tricky and it finally fell in place in 2011. It found that what had seemed weaknesses (where interactions across designs might be a problem) in fact hid a large strength, which is in Chapter 8 with real cases. The method had to be simplified so that users could apply easily.

Finally, the scientific method is used throughout (which folds nicely into comparative effectiveness research, DMAIC or PDCA, etc.), and the book explains what (and how simple) this is. The scientific method allows the same method to be used for existing and new processes: hence the “improvement and innovation” in the title. Innovation becomes less elusive in this way – it can be designed rather than waiting for inspiration. In addition, getting back to pure, simple science means using right-brain (creativity) as well as left (analytic) so more people can contribute in a valuable manner for the enterprise (which can be business, industry, research or government).

There is no mathematical notation so that anyone can read and use these well-established methods. Scientists and researchers will find Chapter 8 challenging on scientific method and randomization, so there's something for everyone. Mathematics is used a lot behind the scenes of the book but the real world is used more: to understand how businesses work and make them work better. 

There are about 20 exercises peppered through the book, for the reader to accelerate what would be learned in field experience and get started on real business competitive problems. 

Surprisingly, it turns out to be a management tool, not one technical people alone can accomplish; it’s not top down though and the book explains why. 

If anyone has read Kieron Dey's book, please feel free to post your comments here.

What Can Lean Do for the Banking Industry?

The banking industry comprises many accounting, regulatory, process, and management challenges, and because its customer-satisfaction and efficiency rates are ripe for improvement, many feel Lean improvement initiatives can transform these financial institutions. A book published just this month titled Lean for Banks: Improving Quality, Productivity, and Morale in Financial Offices, authored by Bohdan Oppenheim and Marek Felbur,shows how Lean and Six Sigma can significantly improve the efficiency of bank operations.

During a recent conversation with Bohdan Oppenheim, I asked him: "Why should financial organizations choose Lean as a methodology to transform and improve their culture and results?" Here is his complete response: 

Few traditional banks are aware that they have vast reserves of productivity. Typically in such banks, both managers and staff work extremely hard, often overtime. Their intuition tells them that there is no reserves left in the system, and that the system is "as Lean as it can be." The knee-jerk reaction is to blame this frantic pace on an excessive amount of work and a lack of employees. The solution appears to hire more employees, but this often has the opposite effect. With more people hired, the system becomes even more difficult to manage, more convoluted, and less efficient.

Fortunately, an excellent solution exists: Lean Thinking. In Lean, employees transition from fighting crises to increasing both customer satisfaction and bank competitiveness. Work becomes more predictable, stable, and pleasant. It soon becomes truly shocking to both management and staff how much work can be accomplished in the same amount of time and with the same resources, simultaneously improving productivity, quality, cost, work morale, and customer satisfaction.

The effects of Lean can be dramatic: up to doubled productivity in the entire system; process times cut by 50-90%; the number of errors reduced by 50-90%; development time for new bank products reduced by half; approval time cut by 90%; modest capital investments (only training); dramatically better human relations at all levels; and, most importantly, vastly better customer satisfaction and company competitiveness.

When faced with stiff competition, traditional companies brutally cut costs, usually by massive layoffs, head-count reductions, and by overworking the remaining employees and suppliers. Without addressing underlying systemic problems, these cuts simply eliminate needed resources and therefore slow down the operations. This causes more frantic work pace, loss of quality, and decreasing customer satisfaction. When this happens, additional customers and profits are lost, resulting in even more cuts and more layoffs. This spiral of failure can easily lead to collapse.

In contrast, Lean focuses on recovering productivity reserves by waste elimination. This in turn leads to lower costs, higher quality, and increased customer satisfaction. Lower operating costs enable banks to keep the employees on the payroll because they will be needed as customer satisfaction attracts more business. During the Lean deployment period, the employees can address those improvements for which there was never enough time, contributing to better productivity and quality. So, the success spiral occurs without layoffs.

One of the most pervasive myths in banking industry is that higher quality requires higher costs. This may be true in the superficial sense of marble floors in front offices, but is totally wrong in terms of the cost of operations. Lean demonstrates that a high quality of operations is actually the least expensive. In Lean, we avoid the high costs of mistakes, errors, defects, rework, delays, frustrations, and subsequent crises, and focus instead on making operations better and better.

The bank industry seems to be one of the last Lean frontiers, delayed no doubt due to the severe 2007-2011 crisis and subsequent massive layoffs in the industry. However, pioneering banks, listed in the book, are rapidly implementing Lean. 

Do you agree with Bohdan's assessment? In which area do you feel Lean can acutely improve financial institutions and the banking industry?

Creating an Organizational Culture Beyond Lean Sigma Tools

Robert Baird just published an interesting new book this month titled The Four Components of a Fast-Paced Organization: Going Beyond Lean Sigma Tools, and I had the opportunity to speak with him about some of the topics presented in the book. One of the questions I asked was: "How do you create a culture of continuous improvement beyond Lean Sigma tools?" Here is his complete response: 

If you look at the characteristics of a successful organization, you will find speed as one of them. Staying ahead and achieving business results at a pace faster than competitors is a distinct advantage. Within Lean, we have some focus on just-in-time, lead time, and on-time delivery, but what are we doing about it? Are organizations focused on improving their organizational speed? We found when there is a focus on speed then industry-leading improvements come with it and people are motivated to keep going, momentum is created, and all employees are engaged to execute the strategy. These are the outputs or effect on an organization when implementing all four of the components -- leadership and mentoring, process design and visual value streams, organization structure for sustainment, and fast knowledge sharing -- of a fast-paced organization. Implementing one, two, or three of the components will certainly achieve results but not the sustained world-class results we are looking for. 

We all want a culture of continuous improvement, learning, and customer orientation and this is what the four components were designed for. Following the implementation steps will inherently develop all of these organizational characteristics. It starts with the Leadership and Mentoring component. The Leaders must be on board first and then each of the other three components are to follow. The Leadership and Mentoring component provides the base which sustains the momentum and starts the culture. Leaders take responsibility for developing people who are trained, motivated, and supported to identify, solve and fix problems. Leaders must empower people to be capable of process ownership. Leaders must guide and support a production system of continuous flow and quality products and service. Finally, leaders must build a learning organization. They are responsible for operational excellence. 

What do you think of Robert's response? Do the leaders in your organization drive the culture? Are there both leaders and mentors in your company?

The New Human Resources Model

Last week, I spent some time on the phone with Daniel Bloom discussing his latest book titled Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma,and I asked him this question: "In the book Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma, you talk about the need to create a new model for the HR function based on a proven business problem solving process. Why is the new model needed at this time?" Here is Daniel’s complete response: 

The Human Resource (HR) function of the 21st century is faced with a real dilemma. In most organizations, they function as the organizational firefighters. They constantly present the message that "here is what we do for the organization." The problem is that this approach does not support the HR function being part of the organizational decision process. They must learn the language of business. 

It is our message that this language of business is the TLS Continuum, which encompasses the principles behind Theory of Constraints (TOC), Lean, and Six Sigma. It is through the Continuum that HR can to migrate to a message of "here is what we deliver to the organization." They are more than just firefighters -- they are the key to strategic initiatives being created that propel the organization forward to a new level of overall alignment. We do this through a focus on the customer, the alignment of the total organization, and the enterprise embedded cultural change to one of constant quality improvement. 

To reach the point of HR excellence, it is critical that the organization implement the power of the problem-solving method by identifying the bottleneck that is slowing down the organization by utilizing TOC and then using the Lean toolbox to remove that single obstacle, which moves the organization along. The Six Sigma toolbox is used to establish the standard of work that dictates what steps are needed going forward to complete the process and create safeguards to ensure that the process we have created is creditable, verifiable, and repeatable. 

In one example from our two-day seminar, one group discovered that in the course of hiring a new person for their team, the job description and requisition are reviewed and approved three times by the same person. While this process had existed for many years, no one recognized that this process obstacle was hindering the talent-management function. While it is important to get the document approved, it is also important that the process runs efficiently. The duplication of process steps is not a sign of efficiency. 

What do you think of Dan's statements? Do any readers strive to achieve HR excellence by risking more than others think safe to change the corporate culture?

Where is Lean and Six Sigma Going?

I recently read a very engaging article by Alan Nicol titled What Are The Futures Of Lean And Six Sigma? over on the Manufacturing.Net site. Essentially, Mr. Nicol sees Lean continuing to expand and having "an on-going evolution." He believes Lean's most powerful strengths are: "1. It attacks an enemy we can all perceive. 2. It is a relatively simple methodology that is reasonably adopted and executed by most anyone; it does not require great skill other than some proficient problem solving."


One point I found quite interesting -- he posits that "Lean has almost utterly failed to succeed where the greatest waste exists, in the office. This is because, having been born on the manufacturing floor, Lean-thinking people tend to try to apply manufacturing solutions to office waste." What are your thoughts on this view? Do you see "office Lean" initiatives as failing  up to this point?


In addition, Mr. Nicol states that "the next Lean movement or revitalization will occur in the 'transactional' realm." I agree with this prediction, but I'm surprised he didn't mention the growing trend of organizations incorporating "green thinking" into their Lean initiatives. I've read about some positive results in the "Lean and green" movement, and I'm wondering what readers here see for the future of Lean initiatives that consider sustainability not only from a technological angle, but from public policy concerns.


Mr. Nicol believes that Six Sigma will "diminish." I think he makes a very insightful point in regard to its failure: "... the specialized team approach fails to change the cultural behavior of the business and its management. In order for Six Sigma to manifest significant improvement, the business must change the way it makes decisions." What are your thoughts on this? One of the criticisms of Six Sigma is that it relies on expensive experts, but never changes mindsets on the operator level.


I find David Rogers' book titled The Future of Lean Sigma Thinking in a Changing Business Environment quite perceptive on this topic. He especially provides some inportant information on the impact of e-commerce on Lean initiatives.

Product Improvement -- Which Approach?

Jay Mandelbaum, along with three co-authors, published a book titled Value Engineering Synergies with Lean Six Sigma: Combining Methodologies for Enhanced Results, and I recently had the chance to ask him a few questions during a phone conversation. I wanted some more clarification on value engineering, but more specifically, I asked him: "Why is it important to use more than one approach to product improvement?" Here is Jay's response:

Different process and product improvement methods were developed under different circumstances -- each has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. Value Engineering (VE) is a practice that is distinguished from other techniques by three elements -- analysis of functions; a multidisciplinary team approach; and the step-by-step VE Job methodology.

VE works synergistically with all other continuous improvement initiatives. It makes any project better by using a unique approach to problem solving that includes the analysis of the functions of an item or a process to determine best value. More specifically, VE systematically determines all of the necessary functions of the item or process, identifies those functions that cost more than they are worth, and brainstorms alternative ways to perform those functions for further evaluation. This distinctive approach drives innovation because it encourages people to think about solutions in atypical ways.

An example recently came to my attention. The New York City FAIRTAX software integrates 40 major systems, 3,000 programs, and 1,400 job streams into seven subsystems, incorporating state-of-the-art technologies and an advanced development environment. The subsystems are: Taxpayer ID, Returns Processing, Property Management, Charge Processing, Accounts Receivable, Collections, and Case Tracking. The amount of information that needed to be input exceeded the capacity of all existing technologies. A Value Team analyzed the functions of the system architecture, software development, hardware, implementation plan, and staffing requirements. The study produced a change in the program to reduce the computer capacity requirements and a revised implementation and staffing plan which yielded monthly savings of $325,000.

What do you think of Jay's response? Do you have any experience using value engineering?