What do weight-loss plans and process-improvement programs such as Six Sigma and “lean manufacturing” have in common?
They typically start off well, generating excitement and great progress, but all too often fail to have a lasting impact as participants gradually lose motivation and fall back into old habits.
Many companies have embraced Six Sigma, a quality-control system designed to tackle problems such as production defects, and lean manufacturing, which aims to remove all processes that don’t add value to the final product. But many of those companies have come away less than happy. Recent studies, for example, suggest that nearly 60% of all corporate Six Sigma initiatives fail to yield the desire results.
Questions to Ask Yourself
1. Has your organization achieved lasting gains from process-improvement programs such as Six Sigma?
2. Do you pay much attention to these programs once they move past the initial stage?
3. Are you involved enough in them to judge for yourself whether they are worth continuing?
4. Have you tied employee-performance appraisals to process improvements?
5. Do you plan on keeping a Six Sigma or other improvement expert on your staff long-term?
If you answered no to any of these questions, you should understand how and why so many process-improvement programs fail. Too often, after the project expert moves on to another project and top management turns it focus to another group of workers, implementation starts to wobble. Understanding where the stress and strains are offers managers an opportunity to avoid them.
We studied process-improvement programs at large companies over a five-year period to gain insight into how and why so many of them fail. We found that when confronted with increasing stress over time, these programs react in much the same way a metal spring does when it is pulled with increasing force—that is, they progress though “stretching” and “yielding” phases before failing entirely. In engineering, this is known as the “stress-strain curve,” and the length of each stage varies widely by material.
A closer look at the characteristics of improvement projects at each of the three stages of the stress-strain curve —stretching, yielding and failing—offers lessons for executives seeking to avoid Six Sigma failures. What follows is based on what happened at one aerospace company that implemented more than 100 improvement projects, only to determine less than two years later that more than half
Get Premium Already a Premium Subscriber? Sign In
Purchase
Buy this article
Purchase one or more copies as a PDF
Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1977-2011. All rights reserved.
There are certain validity in Dr. Chakravorty’s finding but a cautionary flag should be raised mainly becuase not all failed projects falls in the same category as described. I believe most process improvement projects fail becuase alot of companies fail to DEFINE the specific goal the project is suppose to attain. Secondly, for any process improvement project to be succesful, companies have to influence individuals to take ownership and corrolate how perfomance of such projects enhances working condition. Without individual buyi and culture change, such project are destined to fail.
Hakeem Aderibigbe
Dr. Chakravorty’s four take-aways from this case study are effective suggestions for increasing the success rate of process improvement projects. Chakravorkty’s research indicates that groups of this size and nature require a designated leader for sheer coordination of the project. However, I would assert that the precise factors in team creation can make or break said effectiveness. According to the research of Kathleen Eisenhardt of Stanford University, the ideal team size is 3-5 members. I wonder if further reduction in team size and/or project size would result in less need for coordination and, in combination with Chakravorty’s other key suggestions, lead to more successful implementation and follow-through.
Dr. Chakravorty points out a great failing that all technical managers have to some degree (I am guilty as well.)
1. We overestimate the buy in and leadership capabilities of the 2nd generation.
2. We often times do not stress to upper management once the low hanging fruit is removed that the projects will become increasingly difficult.
3. Support (lip service) is not enough. Lead by taking down barriers to change in the organization. Many times serious debridement is necessary of cultural change and lasting change.
I think this is a very well-written article. I believe that the comparison between a fitness regimen and six sigma process improvement is quite apt. A constant guiding force, however, will usually help to increase the success rate of these programs and other similar programs.
-Matt Alibakhsh
I was very interested in Six Sigma when I first learned about it, especially as by numerical definition, as its target is 3.4 defects or less per million. To me this seems very optimistic and only applicable to certain tasks, operations or processes. If GM applies this method to ensure that four tires are installed on a vehicle before it leaves the plant, I see this process working fine. This will not work very well when applied to a hand written form, per human nature. In considering the specific issue of initial improvement followed by a regression I would look to management because given that a project is feasible under Six Sigma, such as my GM example, it lies in management’s hands to develop and foster the growth of a Six Sigma program that can function on its own. I do not feel that having an expert full time is necessary; the expert should come on long enough to train a small group and several capable leaders the required statistical functions and general theory behind Six Sigma. Once the expert leaves the program focuses on being a strategic, functional process within the company as opposed to simply being a group of people that follow an expert and nod at his every statement.
This article written by Satya S. Chakravorty was fairly interesting in the aspect of comparing process improvement programs. The definition of six sigma is seeking to improve the quality of process outputs by identifying and removing the causes of errors and minimizing variability in manufacturing and business processes from a widespread application. I think the implementation of the three different phases: Stretching, Yielding, and Failing, was very beneficial in trying to improve and gain insight to better the company for the future. It is extremely important to pay attention to the program as it moves through each stage and to determine if it’s producing the required results for achievement.
This article was very thought provoking. Although companies are always striving for improvement, the process must be conducted in an effective way that will last over time; otherwise, it is a waste of time and resources. If an improvement expert is pulled off the project too soon, motivation for the people remaining decreases and without direction, will fail. If the manager of the project was trained in this improvement process, he could take over after the expert is not there. This would provide a link and smooth transition for the project to continue to succeed. If the project is successful in the long term, a reward should be provided such as a raise to continue to motivate the team members. Without a reward, the employees will go back to the old way of doing things since there is no incentive to continue the improvements. I agree that these improvement teams should be a small number of people since too many people will have too many differing opinions and then nothing will get done. Most importantly, I think the executives need to be involved in these projects so they can see firsthand the results of the project and the steps taken to getting the project off the ground and to sustain the project long term. If they are not actively involved, they do not have any ownership in the project and the chance is greater that the project will fail.
This is a great article. I never realized how similar six sigma and weight loss programs are, but when I think about it they can be very similar. Both situations require 100% effort throughout the process in order to succeed in the end. All of the examples are great, referencing the stages of a spring becoming stretched out really helped me visualize the early success of the six sigma improvements but the short coming failure as the process moved forward. Much like a weight loss program, many companies and people see early success and begin to celebrate, then they become discouraged as their success plateaus and soon they revert back to their old habits becoming the same person or process prior to the improvements. I think if you attempt a six sigma improvement process the whole division must be fully committed to the process throughout its lifetime in order for it to continually succeed.
As with most everything we have seen in recent years regarding business, if we do not have long term ties to improvements and quality, the eye of management continues to revolve around those things that increases their own personal compensation.
It appears to me that in the above scenario, the money spent on the expert was more for data tracking and not teaching the team how to improve their processes and how to continue looking for additional improvements (after the “low hanging fruit” was picked). Perhaps the companies desire for the consultant wasn’t clear or did he want a long term contract? Six Sigma teaches behavior, analysis and a new “life style” to tie it back to the excellent weight loss comparison. It is a “relearning” process, not just a quick result.
And excuse me, but didn’t we all learn in our freshman year of business management that teams should be small to be the most effective?
Dr. Chakravorty’s points are well taken and valuable for anyone considering Six Sigma in that Six Sigma is not a pancea without pitfalls and very similar to raising kids – it takes attention to detail to be successful. The parents (top managers) must be seen as practicing Six Sigma or the employees (“kids”) will not take it seriously. I disagree with Eisnehardt that 3-5 size teams are appropriate. Team size is based on the degree of expertise needed and cross-functionality of the problem addressed. In my experience teams of 3-5 usually creates “group think”, 5-9 of an appropriate mix generates creativity. The GOAL is not difficult to define. The stated objective of all Six Sigma projects is cost reduction. This is what differentiates it from TQM and Lean that begin with a Quality-first focus. Hope to see more articles from Dr. Chahravorty in the future.
I find this to be a very interesting article. specifically the failure rate of the 6 sigma programs. Yet, I will have to argue that it is no one individual or levels fault. Rather I think that prior to the introduction to a 6 sigma project or lean manufacturing project a company should determine if they are ready for it.
I think that first creating a culture that welcomes change would be far more successful than one that does not. In any system people are the last to adopt change. This is a great example. Creating an atmosphere where teams compete with each other and openly share process and results should in my opinion be far more able to adopt a new program that challenges old practices and beliefs.
Instead of just sending 6 Sigma engineers, I would suggest that HR personnel be sent as well. If not prior to any changes to floor production. Introduce new ideals and help change policy so that any attempt to increase efficiency will be welcomed and supported. To make it a habit I have been told it takes 21 regular events. Can you go to the gym 3 times a week for 7 weeks without positive support and a culture that will welcome it?
This was a very interesting article. It isn’t that surprising though. The Six Sigma expert in this case is essentially an over rated motivator. He gets the teams all pumped for the program while he’s there but when he walks away the program begins to fall apart. He’s like the personal trainer in Dr. Chakravorty’s gym example. While he’s around he motivates you to do more than you normally would and when he’s gone you start to slack off and don’t push yourself as hard.
Being new to the world of management, Dr. Chakravorty’s comparison of some of the common pitfalls of process improvement initiatives and a weight-loss plan makes his article fun to read and easy to understand. I agree with Dr. Chakravorty’s suggestions, however, I must add, using the same weight-loss analogy, “motivation is what gets you started – habit is what keeps you going”. For any process improvement initiative, it is imperative that team members share the same vision as management and are equally bought-in. Management can attain this buy-in by answering the question in the mind of every team member “what is in it for me”. The pitfalls mentioned in Dr. Chakravorty’s article become inevitable if some or all team members view the initiative as a pet project of the team lead. The ultimate goal of any weight-loss plan should not be about vanity but over all health. All team members will be fully bought-in if they all understand the connection between a process improved, the bottom line of the company and their individual prosperity. Without complete buy-in, you can not generate habit.
Seeing how there is such a demand for Six Sigma to increase production and decrease the numbers of errors or defects. It’s no wonder why so many companies are trying to implement Six Sigma plans. However as this case study has stated, if the employees, management, and top level executives don’t have the tenacity or the proper information about what is going on, everything is bound to fail as in the aerospace company. When I was reading this I noticed several issues that were going to cause some problems, size’s of the groups were too large, top management wasn’t directly involved, and the Six Sigma person wasn’t staying with each group to ensure that they stay on track. With each of these minor things, it was inevitable that the whole project was going to derail and just crash. If groups are too large, there is too much of a chance of hidden agendas or disagreements with ideas or directions. Top management needs to be directly involved so they can see for themselves what is truly going on. So that when a project is starting to falter they can step in and help to ensure that everything stays on track. Last, the Six Sigma professional needs to stick around with each group for an extended period of time until someone can take over with proper training. Each of these plus the fourth, performance appraisals that the article mentioned were all little things that overall were going to cause the entire system to fail.
This is an interesting article. And it is absolutely true. I experience this at my work. Whenever there is a new method of process or project is implemented, at for the people in management level and the employees show excitement and enthusiasm however it all goes away after the first sign of success. The management thinks everything is going well and as planned and stops giving all the focus on the continuing of success and the employees realizes that and their performance goes back to as it was before. I understand from my own experience of being in management level position, that it can be very difficult to implement something and try to encourage employees for a long term. Most of the management positions have multiple roles in the company where all of them are equally important. Unless you are fortunate enough to have another person who is expert and manages the process as the article recommends, it is not easy. Also, encouraging employees for a long term on a same project and easier said than done.
I put the blame here on the Executives. Obviously, they should have added onto the Six Sigma expert’s job duties and had him make detailed reports to the top executives about how everything is going. It is part of the basic 5 step problem solving model to monitor a solution to a problem. Perhaps if this was too much work for the expert, someone else could have been hired to make reports. I also feel that there should have been bonuses involved with positive Six Sigma improvements by employees. For instance, I am a server at a restaurant and we have monthly specials. I do attempt to sell them, but in the long run I really do not care because I do not get any kind of reward if I sell the most specials.
I think the comparison by Dr. Chakravorty to a spring is right on target. I don’t know that I would have compared a spring and six sigma but it works. Also I liked how he compared it to starting a diet. I think comparing six sigma to starting a diet makes it easier for everyone to understand. Almost everyone has been on a diet at one point in their life so I think an article is better received when the readers can relate to it.
I think the article has some very valid points. I never realized the failure rate of so many Six Sigma projects was as high as mentioned in the article (nearly 60%). The comparisons mentioned in the article were very realistic, and should be able to be understood by all members of an organization in order to make more Six Sigma projects become successful.
Jarrod Wood
It is sad to see a story where the Six Sigma project fails or produces less than expected towards the completion of the project. The reality is that many times the decisions made are not thoroughly thought out, or do not take in consideration the consequences that they bring down the road in other areas of responsibility different from those making the decisions and driving the force for change. I wonder what Toyota is thinking about cost cutting measures when they have such a big recall of their vehicles while they reputation is being tarnished in all communication medias. Hopefully they will be able to come out of this stronger to continue being leaders in process improvements. For the time being, where I work we will be starting a couple of Lean projects and I dread the amount of additional load of work that they will create, if in the long run there is a chance that it will not work, as described in this article.
I have a brilliant idea to solve the long term process improvement problem in a company. It will take three steps. First off it is imperative to set motivation, so employees will be willingly to go the extra distance to archive the ultimate goal. For example the company could share the savings from process improvement with the involving employees, (10% of the total saving as bones). This way no one has to go behind them with a whip and make sure they are doing the right thing. Second step would be delegating of responsibility, so the lower management is equally liable for the progress. The last step is to monitor the progress closely and solve problem as it comes.
It was interesting to me to see in Dr. Chakravorty’s article an example of Six Sigma failing. I have always heard all of the positives to Six Sigma. I feel that the six sigma process did not fail only the implementation of the process in this example. I agree that motivating employees with incentive is important to the success of the project. I have started several processes at my work, not six Sigma, but process improvment and it is hard to keep employees motivated after some time. They start to lose interest and revert back to what is easiest. I like how the article talks about the three steps. I can see how easy it would be to have a process happen in that way. I feel that one way to implement a process successfully is to have proper training throughout all the employees involved. This was a very informative article.
I believe that this article that Dr. Chakravorty wrote is well written and it brings up some interesting points. I like how he compares weight-loss programs to process improvement programs. He clearly explains how people become so excited with new innovations, but after a while, the excitement dies down. This is something that should not happen. The excitement should never die down and if it does, ways of maintaining or sparking that excitement back up should be introduced. This is where motivation, incentives, rewards, etc. fall into place. I think the conclusion of the lessons learned and the four ways of improvement were great and should be considered within companies when the excitement of new ideas begin to die down.
After reading this article, I find myself questioning the research and statistics provided. The author states that they studied process improvements done in large companies – how large, and how many were really observed. The examples and explanations he offered from his observations were believable and seemed valid, but I have heard many good things come from Six Sigma as well, so I just would like to see his sources of information.
The comparison to a weight-loss program was pretty accurate. People are typically averse to change and it really requires a dedication and formation of habit to be able to instill a lasting change as these process improvement projects would demand.
I don’t think the problem of failed process improvements can be blamed on one area – not just the executives, the expert, or the team – it takes a collective effort and a continuous awareness of the full expectations.
I don’t think Six Sigma is a failed strategy, I just think that some organizations have fallen short in learning how to implement it completely or correctly.
I was a part of a six sigma program at one of my previous jobs. Just like Dr. Chakravorty’s states, about a month after the improvement team left we started falling apart and going back to the way we did it before. The main problem we had was that it required a lot more work, in the same amount of time, and there was no incentive to continue working harder. It put a lot more work and responsibility on everyone involved. The small improvement didn’t justify the amount of extra work involved.
I definitely agree with the author that training is essential for long term success. The team needs to take ownership of the process, and develop the drive to cooperate with other departments for the greater good of the company, and not on what’s easiest for them. Not only does the team need to know how to think about constant improvement, they need to have a good idea of what to improve and how to do it. I agree with the author that one of the best motivators to instill this training and mindset is financial. When the employees can receive a benefit to themselves for helping the company run better, smoother, and make more money, they will be more eager to make and maintain changes instead of reverting to the status quo. Smaller teams are also important, as the bond will be closer between team members allowing for more efficient work, a better drive to work, and more harmonious results. I also agree that the executive ordering the project should definitely be involved and understand the project and the projects goals–this will help them to better plan future improvements.
I think that you have pointed to a key element of a successful project. That would be lesson learned number two, results tied to performance reviews. I have found that where I am employed many projects or initiatives have been implemented that initially had positive outcomes. The problem was that the scorecards used to evaluate the groups and individuals involved in the implementation were not updated to include these projects in their evaluations. The result was that even though the new process were beneficial, the focus was placed elsewhere because that is what the groups and individuals were be evaluated on.
I also think that lesson learned number four is a tough one to swallow. Maybe it depends on the size of the company. I work for a very large company and I can’t imagine our executives being directly involved in this type of project unless they were implemented at a very high level. I think that to a certain degree, you have to trust your management team to give you good information. A poor manager who is willing to falsify reports will be weeded out by good upper management.
The interesting point in this article to me is the failing stage. I agree that individuals begin to fail because they no longer care about improving when hard work goes unnoticed or there is no additional training. I myself prefer critical reviews and if reviews aren’t made available that pertain to my particular work, I no longer find interest in continuing to improve. No one wants to keep working at improving something if they are not sure if they are on the right track and actually improving the task at hand. All companies should strive to provide reviews that are efficient and useful to all departments and not just the ones that are doing an outstanding job.
Dr. Chakravorty’s article was very interesting. I didnt realize how unefficient six sigma has been in recent years. But the use of his three steps stretching, yielding, and failing are a good starting point while attempting to improve the six sigma process. The Spring and weight loss examples were very helpful in visualizing the concepts, helped me realize early improvements or successes doesnt mean the whole situation will be improved or solved. I think six sigma failures are not based on one stage or section problems, I think as an organization you have to be on the same page and be willing for these changes.
I agree with the author that most of the companies view the process improvement methodologies as one time wonder methods, and fail to realize that to benefit in long-term from these methods; we have to commit ourselves to it. In other words, author in my opinion is suggesting that it is the “control-phase” of these methods, where the long-term gains lie. I also agree with the authors suggestion of transitioning the newly implement processes from the six sigma team to the management, so that, the management can take the full charge, before the team moves to the next project.
I think this is an interesting article but it leaves out a major point. Yes the motivator comes in and gives all these goals which motivate the employees. The new plans are implemented and the company or department that experienced change seems to be doing better off. Once the individual leaves the employees who seemed to be doing so well off fall apart.
One reason is because long term habits have neither been taught nor learned to the fullest extent. Another is because the motivator who not only excites the employees about what they are doing but also provides a source of guidance and leadership has departed and no other employee has stepped up to fill this void. Finally as we learned class, the average trend of an improved process usually improves in the beginning (when the expert is present). From there it worsens because everyone is looking to improve their methods and get used to the method, along with teaching others, not to mention the expert is no longer present. Finally the process has become more normal and becomes second nature resulting in much better final results.
I think Dr. Chakravorty has identified and important issue but missed one important learning.
Without embedding these new skills (Lean & Six Sigma) and others (TOC, Systems Thinking, Attributes of a High Performance Team) in the team-leader/supervisor and middle managers then the results that were found in the survey will forever be the outcome.
This article at best reiterates what many people have known, which is that most of process improvement efforts fail. I cannot believe that the editors of MIT Sloan Management Review allowed such an article to be published.
Analogy to a weight-loss plan is nice and accurate. However, the analogy to a metal spring is weak, especially the last phase (failing stage). In the last phase, according to Dr. Chakravorty, “the improvement expert long gone and no additional training in Six Sigma or other improvement strategies provided by the aerospace company.” Therefore, there is no continuous pulling which is in contrary to what Dr. Chakravorty says.
The four lessons learnt seemed to be entirely based on the speculations of the author instead of the actual underlying causes. Dr. Chakravorty suggested four reasons of failure: (1) lack of improvement expert support; (2) performance appraisals untied to process improvement results; (3) large team size; and (4) lack of active involvement of executives. He missed the target badly. Lack of corporate or organizational culture conducive to process improvement has been a hot topic in the recent years. Lack of intrinsic motivation of employees has been found to be the common cause. Dr. Chakravorty’s thoughts seem to be similar to those prior to the year 2000 and need to be updated. He or she needs to join the LinkedIn groups to obtain the latest evolution of process improvement.
I found the spring analogy to be good and not contradictory at all. The notion is once the six sigma experts and focus on improvement leaves, other pressures take hold and performance slips. With the current economic climate and companies reducing staff, it is easy to see priorities shifting.
I am hopeful we will see a follow up article to this one.
Process improvement fails due to lack of positve approach towards problems solving, CFT involvement,Team selection
Very interesting article, and the metaphor between the diet program and process-improvement projects was very relevant to explain the failure to yield desire results. Another element I think is the global trivialization of Six Sigma in some companies. Today the term is used to qualified a project when it is just a project management or a mere repackaging of old concepts. Very hard to genuiely motivate employees in that condition …
This article is misleading to a degree. To consolidate Lean and Six Sigma in to the discussion and then end the discussion with ways projects fail because of lack of interest shows a lack of understanding of Lean. Lean Management is the process of empowering your employees to focus on value in the firm. It’s also the journey and not the destination so categorizing so shortly in the frame of a project is a telling sign that the initiative will fail in the firm. Furthermore six sigma is a tool which can be utilized in the lean framework, but it’s only a process to eliminate statistical variation. Focusing on this component rarely entices employees to continually improve. While SS is a tremendous tool I would argue it rarely can entice success just by the results of a one time implementation. For process change to work you must chance the culture. It must be support from the top and cultivated from the bottom. Management must not be where the decisions are made. It must be made where the knowledge capital resides and that’s with the employees. Remember, for a diet to be successful it can’t be called a diet and needs to be a life style change.
This article was very informative to the reality of six sigma implementation. As a novice to six sigma, the use of the easily understandable analogies of weight loss and stretching of a spring was welcome. It is frustrating to start on a project, spend a lot of resources and effort but have nothing of very little to show for it in the end. The lessons learnt from Dr Chakravorty’s research will undoubtedly be invaluable to companies that have found themselves in such a situation.
Using the weight loss analogy, an individual must keep themselves motivated to work out and loss weight. Companies must also do the same and keep motivated in process improvement projects. Process improvement projects are continuous and ideally should continue throughout the life of a company. Companies need to have a six sigma expert available to troubleshoot any problems that the improvement teams might encounter.
The direct participation of top executives in improvement projects is essential. Direct involvement of executives in ‘ground level’ work is beneficial in setting realistic improvement goals and projected results.
I like the analogy of the spring and I agree with a lot of the article. However, I think that a lot of the reason that companies do not see benefits from Six Sigma is through misapplication or misunderstanding.
Misapplication in that they will put too much time/effort analyzing and justifying an obvious improvement, or the flip side of jumping on the first suggested fix without analyzing other options. The expert needs to know when and where to invest the time and resources.
This leads to the other issue of misunderstanding. The expert lead needs to have an understanding of the processes they are trying to improve. I think that many times companies hire someone with a lot of certifications which is great, but they need to bring that expert to at least a minimum level of understanding of the business/processes that they are to improve.
Dr. Chakravorty’s article points out the importance of Leadership’s responsiblity to consistantly support Process-Improvement strategies not only from the start, but more importantly through to the end. In-house experts should continue the role of process-improvement lead to ensure a viable conclusion to the overall project is attained. I’m happy to read an article on a process that fails and why they do.
This is an interesting article in Six Sigma application techniques. And after reading this article I will share my own brief perspective own relating to sustainable quality/improvement initiatives as viewed by me if I were an employee of a company undergoing improvement projects.
I believe in simple rules of motivation in the corporate culture (entry), First I would want to be fully informed of an improvement project in detail and how will it affect my tasks/responsibilities/processes. If people are selected for projects from your group and immediately they begin to transform operations with the senior management, it will make you wonder what is going on? is your job safe? and are selected members receiving special treatment? Others may not get along with rapid change, however, I believe the situation can be encouraged by distributing all the correct information of the improvement projects, share the information in a timely manner, and answer all questions honestly completely.
The second rule is very simple. The only motivation I need to excel and perform my best to enhance quality and improvement initiatives: “Show me the Money!” Compensation and benefits tied directly to productivity increases will make me work harder and smarter.
I agree and strongly recommend applying the four lessons derived from Dr. Chakravorty’s research to achieve successful results in quality control and improvement projects.
Author’s comparison of Six Sigma process to a strained metal spring is an interesting analogy to explain the reasons behind high rate of Six Sigma projects failure. I believe that the three stages of stretching, yielding, and failing, can be found not only in the Six Sigma related projects, but also in many different small initiatives to improve the current processes at the company. However, due to its size, cost, and importance, failure of a Six Sigma project can have much greater effect on the company that it is implemented in. Therefore, this article can be very useful in understanding the reasons behind the most common failures of the improvement projects and how to prevent it.
All four recommendations how to keep the improvements alive are all very insightful. Good leadership, continued motivation, and the top executives participation in the improvement projects, seem to be critical to a success of the Six Sigma initiative.
While reading this article, I tried to find examples in my organization where projects lost momentum or processes reverted to prior workflow patterns. I struggled to find examples, partly because Six Sigma is not exclusively practiced. I agree with Dr. Chakravorty’s conclusions and have also seen another dynamic. My experience with process improvement programs has been different. I wanted to understand why.
In thinking about what I have experienced in the past few years, it seems it is less about a process, training or reward systems. It seems more that a culture of continuous improvement has been created, where resources, priorities and activities line up with the vision: “this is how we do business now”. Whether a single project or Kaizen action plan succeeds or fails is irrelevant, a culture of continuous improvement and an intolerance for waste has been on going.
The strategy has been to incorporate the culture into the daily lives of operational/functional managers by building skill sets, setting annual business objectives and providing rewards or accountablility in annual performance reviews. The expectation is that the tools are understood and used. Process changes are written into standard operating procedures using by associates and become the expectation. Controls and audits are in place to ensure compliance.
An internal team of experts was created to own and drive process improvement events, from sponsorship, events, implementation and reporting. I have found this strategy effective in helping senior leaders and operational/functional managers balance their time and understand the impact of the changes.
Gary’s comments on process improvement programs at work are similar to my obserations also. Currently a military policy directive (aka, “this is how we do business now”) has helped implement a culture to focus work efforts toward strategy objectives and develop tactical objectives to align business activities and planned resources, priorities and activities. Whether a single project succeeds or fails is irrelevant, a culture of continuous improvement and an intolerance for waste has been on going.
The policy directive provides strategy operational/functional managers the actions items needed for business objectives and provide accountablility in annual performance reviews. The expectation is that the tools are understood and used. Process changes are written into standard operating procedures using by associates and become the expectation. Annual reviews are in place to ensure compliance.
An internal team of experts was created to own and drive process improvement events, from sponsorship, events, implementation and reporting. I have found this strategy effective in helping senior leaders and operational/functional managers balance their time and understand the impact of the changes.
In my workplace, I have never been part of the implementation of a process improvement project like Lean or Six Sigma, but I still find the lessons of the research ring true when applied to any project/group effort.
Often times we will tackle large projects and fall into similar pitfalls as the subject of the case study. Management fails to get personally vested, serious incentives are never given to employees to continue improving and groups become way too large and bureaucratic.
I think if managers were to just take these simple elements into account in any project or situation, they would nearly always witness improvement.
I enjoyed Professor Satya S. Chakravorty article it paralleled many situations that I witnessed in my 8 years of being a 6 Sigma Master Black Belt.
As Prof Chakravorty reports I found the success or failure of a project that used the 6 Sigma methodology could easily be predicted by the attitude of the senior management. Those who supported the outcome, and made it very clear that the new outcome was the new SOP, succeeded. Those that just passed it off as “done…not my concern anymore”" failed.
But to some extent Prof Chakravorty seems to be reporting on where the 6 Sigma process was not followed competely. The 6 Sigma process is a data driven methodology to solve problems. There are other methods that can work equally well. But one differentiator of the 6 Sigma D-M-A-I-C methodology is the “C” = Control. The BB or MBB in a 6 Sigma methodology project is required to introduce controls that are both affective and at the same time can realistically used by the operators within the process. If the operator requires a deep statistical knowledge to interpret whether the controls worked then it would imply the BB failed to implement effective controls. This concept of “error proofing” is one main points of the control process as well. For a control to be affective it has to be: immediate, visible, simple and many cases painful (i.e. the consequences for ignoring the control has to painful enough to the operation it can NOT be ignored).
This article was interesting in how it compared lean process improvement to that of a weight-loss program. Many people can relate to the processes and difficulties of following a regimen of diet and exercise. By showing how the steps of Six Sigma closely mirror that of a weight-loss program, it is easier to see how companies failure rate is so high with these types of projects. I find it hard to say that a Six Sigma expert must be hired full time in order for the process to work. With the proper guidelines, training, and support, companies should be able to continue with the processes improvement without the continued support of an expert. Six Sigma experts should be able to implement the processes where as there continued support and oversight should not be needed. Many companies these days cannot afford these types of experts on a continuous basis.
This article draws a parallel between weight loss programs and process improvement programs. Both types of programs outline a list of steps or strategies to accomplish their goals; however, their success or failure lie in their implementation by people. If a program succeeds, the credit should go to the people who successfully implemented the program’s steps. If, on the other hand, a program fails, the finger should be pointed to the people, and not to the program.
It’s true that process improvemnt must be treated as an ongoing process with strong leadership, but should managers also ask themselves if Six Sigma or a particular expert is appropriate for their company in the first place? Too often, process improvement is treated lake a cure-all panacea. One step to correct the high number of companies abandoning process improvement may be to educate managers on these steps and the need for ongoing support before the changes are ever put in place or the specialists hired. Managers must realize that, like in your dieting metaphor, process improvement is a “lifestyle change” for the organization.
Six Sigma is not just a concept but a way of thinking. Introducing Six Sigma into a company means changing the culture. Changing a culture means changing the way people behave. Dr. Chakravorty’s analogy of the metal spring helps us understand the behavior responses. However, we can take the same analogy to help us understand how to make long-lasting and effective changes. This would require transforming the spring into the desired shape which means making small bends to small area at a time. Just as a metal sculpture makes small changes to his/her metal in order create a master piece, so does changing a culture require small focus areas.
The analogies of the spring and a “diet” are excellent.
As projects by definition are short term, on-going process improvements need a program office to ensure that there is a beginning and ending to each individual process improvement project. When scope changes, a new project should begin, especially when original scope is completed successfully. When projects are allowed to continue with changing scope, focus is lost as described in the article by the teams and management.
Tha article raises a rather important and challenging issue. Nowadays Six Sigma is known to be the business management strategy that is being used by many industries. However, the process of its implementation has proven to be quite a complex task to perform. I believe that the research results should be thoroughly studied by the companies as that knowledge can help to eliminate a number of potential mistakes. Besides, a lot of times companies simply don’t have a luxury of making the wrong decisions. Therefore, as the article points out the emphasis should be put on application of the right resources who would be competent and share the same vision; constant involvment of the manager and/or supervisor who would be able to guide accordingly; and direct connection of the performance appraisals to successful implementation of improvement projects.
All these aspects should be taken into consideration if companies strive for proactive decision-making and overall success.
I believe that over investing in resources in the name of Lean initiatives may not achieve desired results, if Lean events are not prioritized with progress towards overall objectives.
Similarly stated in The Goal, making an employee work and profiting from that work are two different things. Activating a resource and utilizing a resource are not synonymous. A company’s management may be focused on eliminating or alleviating a bottleneck, however, a paradigm exchange between employee and employer may benefit the improvement initiative: In the eyes of management, resources and processes are the usual bottlenecks. In the eyes of the (talent/production/factory) employee, compensation and money are the usual bottlenecks.
Dr. Chakravorty points out interesting facts in failing project strategies. Some projects even fail after having committed expert/leader for the team. It is always important for the team to take ownership of the task and get expertise on the process. The project success is a collective effort from the leader, team and the management. I have seen and started several projects at my work but it becomes micro managing task for the leader after a while if team doesn’t take the ownership of the task. Sometimes it is even difficult to motivate employees with incentives or rewards. Four lessons learned in the article are very important for the success but at the same time project should have a right leader (not only expert) and right team (technicality and personality) to succeed.
The comparison of Six Sigma projects and the spring is accurate in many of the projects I have seen. I believe 2 of the biggest impacts on long term success of these projects lies with the upper management accurately report projects and with the improvement expert keeping the project on task and on top of the participants minds.
Another thought to point out is about failing projects. Not every solution tired will work, sometimes a the individuals involved in the project need to step back and discover why something did not work and decide how to correct it rather than downplaying the current status.
This article gives insightful information about six sigma and how it behaves. Though ideally, six sigma improves the processes by removing production defects, keeping proper control over the process improvement program throughout the project is necessary. The article gives fair idea as what are the main problems related to process improvement and how company can manage it efficiently to prevent the project from failing. The example of stress strain curve (stretching, yielding, failing) gives fair idea as how companies following six sigma process start efficiently but eventually fail because of improper management. I like the way Dr. Chakravorty has explain the problem related to the six sigma process and its solution in very efficient way.
These takeaways are excellent reminders that improvement is change, and to effect change, you must have total buy in at all levels, realistic goals, and a formalized way of measurement.
The three stages given by the article are exactly what I experienced in the plans of weight-loss for myself and the process improvement project which I participated in before. The initial progress truly made us, the team members, excited. But followed struggling in how to balance the daily transactions and keeping the projects going-on always made it hard for us to continue the project. I agree with the idea that the team member should not be over 6 to 9. And I think the ideal team should have 3-5 members. Because it can be more creativity on the new ideas generated and has a better ability on implementation.
Throughout my career I have never been through a formal Six Sigma or Lean improvement project, however I have experienced many process improvement strategies. Dr. Chakravorty’s portrayal of the typical phases of a process improvement plan is exactly what I have experienced in almost every one of these. Just like a weight loss program, once short term goals were met, the motivation and determination to keep going is where the real challenge lies. The management team has to play the part of a fitness trainer and keep everyone on track.
Although I have no formal Six Sigma or other process improvement training, I have been involved in several OPEX projects in my company. We generally use teams of 4 – 6 members, with usually a pretty diverse background, spanning different departments. A key element is that one of the team members has to be senior management. We aim to achieve results fairly quickly in order to keep the team motivated, often sacrifing the scope of the project in order to be able to keep the wheel turning. We found that chosing the scope too broad often leads to “analysis paralysis” whereas narrowing the scope leads to focused action. This also keeps the project time shorter, ususally 6 to 8 weeks. We do not have a 6 sigma expert in our company, however we do use the typical TQM toolbox methodologies and techniques (6 balls, Pareto analysis, Ishikawa diagrams,…) and we make sure that all the team members are thouroughly familiar with all these tools. So it seems that without knowing it, we are actually applying internal guidelines that are supporting three of the lessons from Dr. Chakravorty’s research. We are still working on the most efficient way of how we can couple this to our performace evaluation/appraisel system.
From my experience, the “yielding phase”, that Dr. Chakravorty describes is exactly where the wheels typically begin to fall off in many process improvement programs. Whether it’s a lean initiative or really any new sector of business development, a dedicated resource is usually necessary to keep the focus of the group on task and ensure follow-ups and results are delivered as promised. Momentum is hard to maintain with all of the other tugs and pulls from normal, day-to-day job requirements. A strong point was made in Lessons Learned summary… tie RESULTS to perfomance appraisals and goal-setting exercises, not merely program participation.
I’m curious if these programs have a similar failure rate in countries outside the US. What is described in this article reminds me of the short term focus of most US companies (for instance beating the earnings forecast for the year). This goes along with the tendency for managers to seek to make an improvement, when that is accomplished they have built their resume/reputation and are promoted and move on. The incoming manager wishes to make their own mark on the company and casts aside previous efforts. I believe that if there is not a clear, long term strategy and commitment from the very top of a company these process-improvements will continue to be ultimately ineffective.
Both strategy execution and process improvement require buy-in at all levels within the company ,not just at the top management level, Middle managers, front-line managers, and day-to-day workers must understand the goal, and the plan to get to that goal must be individualized. Communication is key to making this happen.
As well, incentives must be aligned to success in process improvement at all levels. I find that, many times, managers are incentivized (via bonuses, raises, and/or promotions), while the “day-to-day” worker is left out. This can create de-motivation (or no motivation) to accomplish the improvement goal by the workers who are in the position to most effectively improve a process.
One point beyond the article is that not all failures are failures. Sometimes, when we fail in an improvement effort, we learn things we did not realize prior to beginning the effort. Constant review and feedback are necessary in any improvement effort to make it as effective as possible.
Brian Nix – MGT 8490