Biography and Professional Vita - Dr. Mikel Harry

Now we have for you the Biography and Professional Vita of Dr. Mikel Harry who is regarded as the Father of Six Sigma, Please go through the Biography of this Great Man.

Mikel J. Harry

Ph.D., Arizona State University, 1984
M.A., Ball State University, 1981
B.S., Ball State University, 1973

Dr. Harry has been widely recognized and cited in many publications as the principle architect of Six Sigma and the world's leading authority within this field. His most recent book entitled Six Sigma: The Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World's Top Corporations has been on the "best seller list" of the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Amazon.com. He has consulted to many of the world's top CEOs and has been a featured guest on such television programs as the NBC show "Power Lunch." In addition, he has been distinguished by Arizona State University with the 2002 Engineering Excellence Award for superb achievements in the engineering profession and notable contributions to society. At the present time, Dr. Harry is President and COB of the Six Sigma Management Institute.

As founder of the Six Sigma Academy in 1994, he served as a board member and chief executive officer. In addition, he has served on the Board-of-Directors for the International Statistics Application Institute and the International Design Institute, Singapore. Dr. Harry was employed by Asea Brown Boveri and served as Corporate Vice President, Quality Systems Deployment. As such, he was directly responsible for the global leadership, implementation, and deployment of Six Sigma at ABB. His activity was focused on the creation of world-class levels of improvement in product quality, performance, producibility, and cost.

Before this, Dr. Harry founded Motorola's Six Sigma Research Institute and served as Corporate Director and Senior Member of Technical Staff. In this position, he was responsible for the development of Six Sigma implementation strategy, deployment guidelines, and advanced application tools. For his technical leadership, Dr. Harry was appointed as an associate member of Motorola's prestigious Science Advisory Board (SABA). In recognition of his technical contributions, he was inducted into the Scientific and Technical Society at Motorola's Government Electronics Group.

As one of the original architects and pioneers of Six Sigma at Motorola, he was responsible for the research and development of advanced Six Sigma engineering models and methods. While serving the Motorola Government Electronics Group, Dr. Harry also held the positions of Member of Technical Staff, Group Operations. Before this, he held the position of Manager and Principal Staff Engineer, Advanced Quantitative Research Laboratory. He also served as a Quality and Reliability Engineer when he first joined Motorola.

Before joining Motorola, Dr. Harry was a consultant to several Fortune 500 corporations in the areas of statistical engineering, experiment design, statistical process control, and quality management. His industrial experiences also include manufacturing management at General Motors Corporation and industrial engineering with Dayton Walther Corporation. Dr. Harry has also served as an instructor within the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Division of Technology, Arizona State University. In addition, he was a member of the ASU/IBM Joint Engineering Study.

Prior to beginning his professional career, he was commissioned into the U.S. Marine Corps as a Second Lieutenant. His tour of duty included serving as an infantry platoon leader and later as an executive officer and company commander. He was also certified as a nuclear-biological-chemical warfare officer and was honorably discharged with the rank of Captain.

Significant professional contributions include creation of the Six Sigma Breakthrough Strategy and the Six Sigma Black Belt concept. In addition, Dr. Harry authored the first substantive publication on Six Sigma. This book was designed to articulate the philosophy, theory, and application of Motorola's Six Sigma Program and was published under the title "The Nature of Six Sigma Quality." In addition, Dr. Harry was responsible for the research and development of an advanced mechanical design engineering tolerancing system, for which he received a major engineering award from Motorola. The design algorithms have since been translated to functional engineering software. This work was published by Motorola, Inc. under the title "Six Sigma Mechanical Design Tolerancing.".

Another major contribution was the research and development of an RF/Microwave design analysis and optimization procedure. This work was published by Motorola University Press and used by Motorola, Texas Instruments and other noted corporations. Dr. Harry was directly responsible for the research and development of a process characterization methodology, as well as the supporting mathematical statistics. This work was published by Addison-Wesley under the title "Six Sigma Producibility Analysis and Process Characterization." .

Dr. Harry has over 50 major publications to his credit. His work has appeared in such journals as Quality Progress, IEEE Micro and Circuit World, Journal of Circuit Technology. In addition, he has authored a substantial reference book on the application of experiment design, inferential statistics, and statistical process control. The book is entitled "Achieving Quality Excellence: The Strategy, Tactics and Tools". Most recently, Dr. Harry has published an eight volume set of books entitled The Six Sigma Series. This extensive work presents the implementation guidelines, deployment strategy and application tools related to Six Sigma. Supporting this series and furthering the power of quality, he published a unified set of articles in Quality Progress entitled New Frontiers.

His work is actively used and promoted by such noted institutions as General Electric, Ford Motor Company, Sony, Allied Signal, Stanford University, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Unisys, IBM, Rockwell, Kodak, and the Department of Defense, as well as many others. He is a contributing author to a textbook on the application of SPC methods and experiment design in automated manufacturing, Marcel Decker. In addition, he is a contributing author to a textbook used by the Mathematics Department, U.S. Air Force Academy. He has served as chairman of the Product Design Sub-committee for Producibility Metrics, United States Navy. In addition, he was technical co-chairman of the SPC standards committee for the Interconnecting and Packaging Electronics Circuits Institute (IPC). He received the President's Award from IPC at the 1990 Annual Conference for outstanding technical contribution to the industry.

Dr. Harry has personally trained and worked with such Chief Executive Officers as Jack Welch (General Electric), Jac Nassar (Ford Motor Company) and Larry Bossidy (Allied Signal), as well as their senior executive teams and technical/scientific communities. In addition, Dr. Harry has worked with several distinguished professional societies around the world. He has personally trained thousands of leaders and practitioners around the globe. He is frequently retained as a keynote speaker and presenter for industry symposiums and prestigious functions such as the Young President's Organization (YPO). Dr. Harry has also been featured in several documentaries and was the subject of a feature article in "Personal Success" magazine, Quality Progress magazine and the international magazine: The Globe and Mail Report on Business.

Six Sigma in Government--Indianapolis Star Article

The state's human services agency, known for its fiscal foul-ups, says it will save taxpayers at least $1.5 million over one year using a quality control program known as Six Sigma.

Fortune 500 companies swear by this cost-cutting tool. But critics question the time and money the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration has devoted to training 30 workers to use it.

The agency's leader, John Hamilton, says savings should more than cover the $250,000 spent on Six Sigma, even as his agency has made deep cuts in social programs, including $500 million in Medicaid. The initial cost-saving projects included finding faster ways to process child support and eliminating overpayments to companies that provide in-home care for people with mental disabilities.

Rhonda Hall, a 27-year-old social services coordinator for a Franklin nursing home, has never heard of Six Sigma. But the Greenwood woman favors trying anything that would help her get the $74-a-week support payment ordered for her son, Kyle, 4.

"They took his father's tax refund six months ago, and I just got it," said Hall, who received about $3,000 from her son's father, who now lives in Tennessee.

It's too early to say what potential cost savings from Six Sigma will be. But to address skeptics, the agency has asked managers with four companies in Indiana that use Six Sigma -- Cummins Inc., International Truck and Engine Corp., ITT Aerospace and Roche -- to validate the savings.

"We wanted from the beginning to have some outside voices see what we're doing," said Hamilton, who spearheaded the controversial training effort.

Six Sigma requires workers to go beyond using gut instinct and experience to solve problems. It involves using advanced statistical techniques to identify what really causes errors so they can be fixed. The aim is to achieve near perfection on the assembly line or with administrative tasks.

"Everyone thinks it's a program just for manufacturers," said Peter Maniago, a former state health official who works as a government process manager for Roche, a maker of drug and medical diagnostic products.

"It's not just about widgets," he said. "And it's perfectly applicable to state government."

The outside advisory group met this week for the first time and will continue to meet quarterly. Its members want more data before they sign off on the agency's savings, but they offered praise -- and some criticism -- as state managers went over the first three projects.

"It's neat to see a government agency embracing continuous improvement and a technique that will get you there," said Paul Gambino, an Indianapolis-based manager of quality systems for International Truck and Engine Corp. "These are our tax dollars."

But the outside advisers also urged the agency to develop ways to monitor whether its cost-cutting efforts are hampering the delivery of services people desperately need.

Gov. Frank O'Bannon has given Hamilton the freedom to pursue Six Sigma, but he wants to see results, said Andrew Stoner, the governor's executive assistant for human services and an administration spokesman.

"If we're going to spend that kind of money," Stoner said, "we need to show it was worth it."

Six Sigma was pioneered by Allied Signal, General Electric Co. and Motorola Inc. in the mid-1980s. Indiana may be the only state using it and the first to apply it to human services, according to the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures.

In July, Hamilton asked state workers to pitch in and help managers who have been through the two- or four-month training sessions with their cost-cutting projects.

The program designates the level of training using martial arts terms. Black belts get four months of advanced statistical training to oversee big projects, and green belts get half as much to assist.

Matt Raibley, a black belt, manages Indiana's welfare, food stamp and welfare-to-work programs. He oversaw a team that reduced the time workers spent manually researching noncustodial parents' payment histories for 92 county prosecutors. There was a 39-day backlog of research requests, with each case taking an average of three hours.

Before any money can be disbursed, researchers must pore over 120 million documents on microfiche and electronic records kept since 1996 to ensure state and federal governments are first repaid for such expenses as prior welfare benefits and overdue taxes.

Raibley's team saved $153,940 by limiting overtime work to the most experienced researchers for several months. But a dispute with the Unity Team, the union that represents human services workers, stalled the project last month, with the backlog cut to fewer than 21 days.

State officials hope to reach a compromise that would allow the overtime savings to continue.

The same team also:

?Found a $350,000 federal grant that could help automate the research process.

?Saved $57,024 by encouraging employers to deposit child support payments withheld from workers' pay electronically, using the state's Internet site.

?Found a $350,000 grant to experiment with making support payments using debit cards.

Raibley is relieved the project is almost behind him -- and he can't wait to start another.

"It's been very beneficial to my own personal development," said Raibley, who's worked for the state for nine years. "There's a lot of pressure, but it's somewhat of a relief to know that these tools do work."

Six Sigma program takes aim at mistakes

Six Sigma is a method of improving the way things are done by eliminating mistakes. The idea is that if you can measure defects, you can eliminate them, saving money and improving service.

The word "sigma" is a statistical term that measures how far a given way of doing things falls short of perfection. The number preceding the term indicates the closeness to perfection. For instance, a process that is 2 sigma is perfect 69.1 percent of the time, one that is 3 sigma is perfect 93.32 percent of the time, and one that is 6 sigma is perfect 99.99966 percent of the time.

It's more than an abstract statistical concept. A municipal water utility operating at 3.8 sigma would produce unsafe drinking water 15 minutes a day. At 6 sigma, the incidence of unsafe water would drop to one minute every seven months.

Source: U.S. Mayor magazine

Six Sigma project savings estimates

The Indiana FAmily and Social Services Administration has wrapped up three Six Sigma projects. The agency has asked otuside experts to validate its savings estimates, which are:

?$938,250 from eliminating overpayments to companies and nonprofits caring for people with mental disabilities in their homes.
?$315,900 from reducing overtime paid to caregivers at the Fort Wayne State Developmental Center, which serves about 300 severely mentally disabled people.
?$210,964 by reducing overtime paid to process child-support payments and eliminating the jobs of two clerks who process child support that is now submitted via a state Internet site.

Choosing the Best Method for Listening to the Customer

Once you decide what you want to know, from whom you want to know it, and what you will do with the data, you must carefully consider what method is best suited for gathering customer information for your Six Sigma project. Among the factors to consider when deciding on a research method are the length of time it will take to collect data, the type of data that will be collected, the cost of the collection method, and the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Here is a table which summarizes these aspects of eight types of data collection. It is followed by a short discussion of each method.

Telephone Surveys

The results of a telephone survey of a randomly selected sample can usually be generalized to an entire population. For example, if a person wants to learn how satisfied customers are with a type of software, a survey of randomly selected individuals who have purchased that software will provide the information. A standard questionnaire must be developed, a sample selected, and interviewers must make the phone calls and record the data.

This type of data can produce valuable information but it is expensive. A 10-minute telephone interview with a random sample could cost in the neighborhood of $20,000 or more; the actual cost will, of course, depend on a number of factors such as how many people will be interviewed and how readily available an accurate sample of the target group is. Actual data collection usually takes a couple weeks although the preparation time needed to write the questionnaire can be several weeks.

The primary disadvantage of this method is that standardized, quantifiable telephone surveys are somewhat rigid. For example, all questions must be asked to all respondents in the same manner. Question wording should not vary. With some exceptions, all response categories must be the same and all inclusive. Also, no visual aids can be used.

Mail Surveys

A mail survey also can yield quantifiable data that can be generalized to an entire population and typically at a much lower cost than a telephone survey. However, the survey can take several months to complete and response rates are low. As a rule of thumb, the lower the response rate, the less reliable the data. For example, if a questionnaire is sent out to learn whether customers are satisfied with that same software, a small percentage ?maybe 5 to 20 percent ?will usually return the survey. Follow-up letters and questionnaires must be sent which adds to the cost and, more importantly, the time it takes to complete the study. After all of those efforts, it is not unusual to end up with a completion rate of 40 or 50 percent. Fifty percent is generally considered the lowest acceptable response rate.

Focus Groups: In-Person

The trade off in an in-person focus group ?a discussion of 5 to15 people, usually for two hours, guided by a moderator ?is that detailed information can be obtained but the information cannot be generalized to a population larger than the group itself. Using the same software example as above, a questionnaire may be able to determine how satisfied the customer is with the product and perhaps even areas of dissatisfaction. In a focus group, the moderator can probe about the reasons behind the dissatisfaction and perhaps discuss some possible solutions to the problems. The discussion can be quite in-depth. Visual aids can be provided. Much flexibility exists. To help mediate the fact that the results cannot be generalized to a larger population, focus groups and surveys are often conducted in partnership which provides both qualitative and quantitative data.

The cost of a focus group varies somewhat depending on location and availability of participants. However, a focus group typically costs about $5,000. Travel also can be expensive. Groups should be conducted in a variety of locations throughout the area in which the product or service is used. That often can require clients, moderators and viewers to travel to the different locations. Although a focus group takes only a couple of hours to complete, recruiting participants and preparation of guidelines usually takes at least a couple of weeks.

Another issue to consider is that many focus group facilities have a list of people they tap into to participate in focus groups. They can and often do use the same people over and over. Although research has yet to be done on the effects of using the same individuals frequently as focus group participants, one might conclude that these people could lack the spontaneity or freshness that is sought from focus group participants.

Focus Groups: Online

While in-person focus groups have been used by researchers since the 1940s, online focus groups are a recent development. Online groups consist of a dozen or so people who log onto an Internet chat site at the same time. A moderator leads the group. The moderator types in questions and participants respond and a dialogue among participants ensues.

The biggest disadvantage is that this type of research is suited only for younger age groups. Individuals age 40 and over generally are not as comfortable or accustomed to online chatting. Their input can be stifled by the technology. In contrast, younger participants are comfortable and this method can yield a lot of information.

The cost of this method can be as much as an in-person focus group. The primary savings is in the elimination of travel expenses. Viewers, clients and the moderator can all log on from different locations.

One-on-One Interviews

One-on-one interviews typically provide qualitative information that cannot be generalized to a larger population. As with focus groups, however, the interview allows for detailed information that cannot be obtained from a survey. One disadvantage is that the interaction or discussion that results from a group is eliminated. There is only a dialogue between the interviewer and interviewee.

One-on-one interviews can be particularly useful for people with limited availability such as doctors, CEOs and celebrities. Getting a group of these people together in a room at the same time for a two-hour focus group discussion can be difficult. One-on-one interviews can be planned more easily around a busy individual's schedule. Regardless, interviews with such people can still be difficult to obtain because of the demands on their time. And often high-profile individuals expect some type of financial incentive, like compensation for their time or a donation to a favorite charity in their name.

An advantage of one-on-one interviews is the cost usually is low. Of course, possible compensation for interviewees and the cost of the interviewer must be considered. If the same interviewer is used ?which is often a good approach ?travel expenses may become a factor as the interviewer travels to various locations to meet with the individuals.

Intercepts

Intercepts consist of approaching an individual in a public location. For example, if information is needed from mothers of infants, the interviewer may go to a shopping mall and approach people who fit that description and ask for their input. Often these individuals are provided an incentive, perhaps $10 or $20.

This information is qualitative in most respects. Intercepts also can yield limited quantitative information if enough interviews are conducted. However, the population to which the data is being generalized must be clearly noted. Using the above example, if data is gathered from 200 mothers with a standardized questionnaire who were randomly selected (such as every fourth woman with an infant), the data can be generalized only to women at the mall on that specific day and time frame who passed the location of the interviewer and who had brought an infant.

Another example of intercept data is to approach customers who are leaving a movie theater to ask them about their experience at the theater or their reaction to the movie, advertisements or whatever else was shown. Again, the researcher must be careful in generalizing the data. Interviewers also must be trained because they tend to want to approach only people who look friendly even though data is needed from all types of people.

User Testing

This methodology requires asking individuals to use a product, often while they are being observed. Or, instead of being observed, the individuals could be asked to keep a diary. User testing can be extremely valuable in understanding how to make a product easier to use. Web sites often undertake user testing to see if their site is easy to navigate. It can be determined at what point and why, for example, people who have initiated a purchase on a web site suddenly exit and the sale is lost. This data is primarily qualitative.

The time frame for user testing varies. If a group of people can be observed while navigating a web site, the data can be collected in one evening. However, research may need to done over the course of several weeks. The cost depends on specific situations but it generally is comparable to a focus group.

Customer Complaints

Obtaining input from customers who complain can provide insight into problem areas but it also is qualitative data that cannot be generalized. For example, if customers write letters or phone with complaints, there has been no systematic way of collecting the data. And it is often the case that people who complain are simply those who are habitual complainers, who have had a particularly bad experience, or who have the time to register a complaint. These individuals do not provide an accurate reading of the experiences of all customers. Customer complaints can provide a sense of where problems exist, but the data cannot be generalized.

The cost of collecting customer complaints usually is low. The only effort required is for someone to monitor and tabulate the complaints as they come in. It usually is necessary to collect complaints for several months to provide insights into any but the most obvious problems.

Blackbelts - Who and How ?

Black Belt Selection & Training :
An important, but not comprehensive, role of a Six Sigma Black Belt is that of technical expert in the area of Six Sigma methods. This expertise allows the Black Belt to understand the link between complex customer needs and the critical internal process elements designed to achieve them.

In the fall of 2000, I participated as a subject matter expert on a panel to develop an industry-wide Body of Knowledge for Six Sigma Black Belts. The panel, commissioned by the American Society for Quality (ASQ), drew upon the collective experience and expertise of leading Six Sigma consultants and trainers.

It is interesting to note the general similarities between the participating organizations' training topics. There were, however, two sources of disparity with regard to training:

• Some topics were not covered for selected Black Belt programs. For example, a handful of training firms provided only a cursory overview of Designed Experiments and Multivariate Analysis for Black Belts in the services industries, on the belief that those tools were less needed in service industries. These same training organizations tended to ignore Lean Thinking as a viable topic for these clients.
• There was disparity on the level of comprehension (i.e. the cognitive level) for some topics.

While there is a credible argument that many Six Sigma projects will require use of only a handful of tools, and that a portion of these will require only rudimentary statistical knowledge, Black Belts nonetheless need to learn these skills. Black Belts should be taught to think critically and challenge conventional thought. Six Sigma levels of improvement require what Juran termed "breakthrough thinking." Successful breakthrough requires rigorous analysis. Black Belts must be taught to accept ideas and opinions as just that, noting their limitations. They need to learn to use analytical tools to examine these ideas and to find sustainable solutions to the problems plaguing the company. This applies equally to manufacturing and service applications. Statistical tools allow Black Belts to prove concepts with minimal data and process manipulation, so that great advances can be made in a short amount of time. Problems that have gone unsolved for years can be attacked and conquered.

While Six Sigma Black Belts are generally given credit for their expertise in analytical, statistical and problem solving techniques, successful Black Belts must be much more than technical experts. The advancement of an organization from a nominal 3.5 Sigma to Six Sigma represents a vast organizational (and cultural) change. As such, Black Belts are primarily Change Agents.

Effective Change Agents are:

• Positive Thinkers: Black Belts need to have faith in management and in the direction of the business and its Six Sigma program. They must be upbeat and optimistic about the program success, or they risk undermining management or the Six Sigma initiative. They need to exude self-confidence, without the pitfalls of being overbearing, defensive or self-righteous. Proper Management support and vision allow Black Belts to both believe in and experience their potential as Change Agents.

• Risk Takers: Black Belts need to be comfortable as Change Agents. While ineffective Change Agents agonizes over implementing change, effective Change Agents relish it. They enjoy the excitement and the challenge of "making things happen" and "grabbing the bull by the horns". They know that change is necessary for the company and the customers' sake; and that change is inevitable, given the competitive market. Only by leading the change can we hope to steer its outcome. The effective Change Agent wants to lead the charge.

• Good Communicators: An effective Black Belt needs to be capable of distilling a vast amount of technical material in an easily comprehensible fashion to team members, Sponsors, Champions and management. Many of these personnel will have only minimal training (Green Belt or Champion level) in statistical techniques, if any at all. The Black Belt that can clearly and succinctly describe to the team why, for example, a designed experiment is better than one-factor-at-a-time experimentation will strengthen the team and shorten its project completion time.

  Of course, being a good communicator is much more than just being capable of distilling technical material. An effective Change Agent must also comprehend and appreciate others' concerns. These concerns must be responded to in a thorough, respectful and thoughtful manner. Through the use of the Six Sigma statistical techniques, data can be used to predict the merits of various improvement strategies, and address these concerns. The effective Change Agent will enlist those with concerns to participate in these efforts, either as team members or Project Sponsors. Through participation, these employees learn to understand the nature of the problem and the most viable solution. 'Buy-in', a necessary part of sustainability, is greatly enhanced through this participation.

• Respected by Peers: It is often said that an individual's position in an organization can be either earned or granted, but that true power must be earned. Effective Change Agents have earned the respect of others in the organization by their hard work and effective communication. Those new to an organization, or who have not gained respect from others, will find it harder to implement changes.

• Leaders: Black Belts will often serve as Team Leaders; other times they need to show respect to others (and true leadership) by allowing them to assume leadership roles. First wave Black Belts will also serve as role models and mentors for Green Belts and subsequent waves of Black Belts.

Many of these Change Agent skills are facets of one's personalities, but they can be supported through awareness training, management policy, and coaching and mentoring by Master Black Belts and Champions. The best Black Belts are those individuals who show a balance between these softer attributes and the technical skills described in the Body of Knowledge. Many firms demand demonstration of these Change Agent attributes, through work history and personal recommendations, as a pre-requisite for consideration of Black Belt candidates. Depending on the business and functional area, a technical college degree may also be required. For example, a BS in Engineering may be required for manufacturing areas, whereas a Business Degree may be required for sales or business development areas.

How Much Do Defects Truly Cost?

by Jerome A. Blakeslee, Jr.

The following examination of an airline's difficulties with baggage handling provides a compelling illustration of the escalating costs of seemingly simple defects.

The Defect Identified ?/B>

On a recently completed round-trip flight from Philadelphia to Vienna on “My Favourite Airline (MFA),?I passed twice through London’s Heathrow airport. Arriving in Vienna, after a long wait at the baggage claim area, it became clear that my bag had not arrived quite as efficiently as I had.

I was informed by a very courteous baggage services person, “Frequently MFA baggage does not make the transfer at Heathrow, especially on weekends.?

My bag did arrive on the next flight and was efficiently delivered to the hotel in Vienna about eight hours after my arrival.

?And Repeated

I returned to Philadelphia the following Saturday, again through Heathrow, and was surprised to hear my name being paged when I entered the baggage claim area. Again, a very polite and concerned MFA agent informed me that my bag had, unfortunately, not made the transfer at Heathrow and would arrive on the next flight. “Heathrow is like a giant tornado,?she said. “The bags get sucked in, they fly around, and sometime later they come out . . . maybe.?/P>

My bag had still not arrived on Sunday evening. While on the phone with the customer service agent, I received a call from the baggage delivery service: “We have your bag and can deliver it by 2 A.M. on Monday morning.?

Now I was curious. “How many bags do you deliver a day for MFA in Philadelphia??I asked the delivery service agent.

“At least 50 a day, many times 100 to 200,?was the answer.

Further questioning revealed the service charges were $0.75 per mile for delivery. The delivery to my home cost $65 and was typical.

A conservative estimate of costs to MFA of the baggage handling process:

• Special Baggage Services: 50 deliveries/day x $65/delivery = $3250/day per city.
• Extra MFA employee wages: 5 people x 8 hours x $20/hour = $800/day per city = $1.4 million/year at Philadelphia.

If this occurred at 10 destinations:

• $4050/day x 365 days/year x 10 destination cities = $14 million/year
• 20 destinations would result in potential savings = $28 million/year
• And 30 cities experiencing the same problem = $42 million/year

The calculation does not include other costs such as the extra baggage handling costs at Heathrow, the extra customer service time necessary to handle the complaints, or lost revenues. Still, as you can see, the cost of this level of defects (estimated at 3.0 sigma) is staggering.

Introduction to Six Sigma Experience Levels

Black Belts may be the celebrities of Six Sigma, but they can’t launch and sustain an initiative alone. The success of any Six Sigma improvement effort depends upon the teamwork of many skilled participants, each playing a clearly defined role.

This network of Six Sigma expertise includes specialists at two broad levels:

• Project level: Experts known as Six Sigma "belts" conduct projects to implement improvements
• Organizational level: Organizational guides known as Executives and Champions ensure that projects add value and the program moves in a planned direction

Because Six Sigma is a company-wide initiative that addresses very specific opportunities for improvement, both of these functions must cooperate to produce the kind of results that will support a long-term implementation.

Six Sigma Belts: Improvement Experts

Black Belts (BBs) and Green Belts (GBs) conduct the improvement projects that account for the day-to-day work in any fully deployed Six Sigma program. Internal employees with special training in the Six Sigma methodology, they lead project teams in performing the statistical analysis that points toward process improvements, and they implement measures to sustain the gains.

Master Black Belts (MBBs) provide training and support for both Black and Green Belts. In more mature programs, Master Black Belts can be developed internally from experienced Black Belts. In newer programs, Master Black Belts are sometimes brought in from outside of the organization to conduct training and help deploy Six Sigma.

The table in Figure 1 presents a comparison of these three belt roles. Figure 2 illustrates the relationships among them.

Fig. 1 About Six Sigma Belts

Black Belts	Green Belts	Master Black Belts
Full-time improvement specialists	Part-time improvement specialists who retain their previous job duties	Full-time improvement specialists
Receive 4 weeks?training over a 4-month period	Receive 2 weeks?training over a 2-month period	Statistics experts, often former BBs from within the organization
Lead problem-solving projects	Assist with data collection and analysis for BB projects	Develop key program metrics and help establish strategic direction of the program
Train and coach project teams	May lead teams and run GB projects	Train and coach BBs and GBs, often at multiple sites

Why the “Belt?Terminology?

Mikel Harry, one of Six Sigma's creators and chief promoters, introduced the belt system for designating experience levels. Having a personal interest in the martial arts, he noticed that martial artists and Six Sigma experts share similar qualities, namely, practiced skill, mastery of very basic tools, dedication, and humility as they learn.

The belt terminology caught on. Its ability to conjure up powerful imagery especially contributed to early efforts to capture interest, and it became a unifier for large implementations, helping to speed Six Sigma's integration across entire organizations.

Improvement projects obviously have the most impact when their objectives are tied closely to organizational priorities. The Six Sigma Executive and Champion roles, described in Figure 3, ensure that this connection remains strong.

Executive leaders establish the strategic focus of a Six Sigma program. They provide overall alignment with both the culture of the organization and its vision of the future, and they create the system context for Black Belt projects.

Champions take their company’s vision, missions, goals, and metrics and translate them for individual projects. An organization may have one overall Program Champion to guide the progress of the implementation as a whole, in addition to Project Champions who sponsor individual projects by providing resources, removing roadblocks, and conducting phase reviews.

Fig. 3 About Executive and Champion Roles

Executives	Champions
Spend up to 25% of time on Six Sigma	Spend up to 80% of time on Six Sigma
Attend one-day Executive training sessions	Receive one week of training
Drive overall program	Help drive program; align projects with organizational goals
Establish organizational goals and business targets for the program	Manage and support Black Belts

A Broader View

Any well-established and smoothly functioning implementation is characterized by easy and frequent communication among all experience levels. There are, nevertheless, a few primary interactions that are especially key to success.

Figure 4 depicts the main relationships among the Six Sigma belts and Executive and Champion roles. Champions and Master Black Belts have a combined focus, operating at both the project level and the organizational level. However, whereas Master Black Belts are technical advisors, helping to establish the metrics behind the overall program, Champions serve as more of a diplomatic link, providing organizational support for Black and Green Belts.

From the chart in Figure 5, it is easy to see that Black Belts and Master Black Belts form the backbone of any Six Sigma program. Full-time improvement experts, they provide the time and the talent that bring project results. For those results to have real value, however, Executives and Champions must establish an organizational context for the program, and Green Belts and team members must be in place to provide follow-through.

When Six Sigma specialists at each experience level perform their roles well, the program becomes central to operations. All employees soon become involved, finding opportunities to serve on project teams, whether as the owners of the processes being improved, subject matter experts, or representatives from other departments that have an interest in project outcomes.

Cultivating such opportunities for involvement accomplishes more than uniting an organization around an implementation. The more employees who take an early interest in Six Sigma and participate on project teams, the more potential Green Belt, Black Belt, and Champion candidates there will be to keep a program growing for years to come.

Six Sigma Program -Key Success Factors-

They apply to any major business initiative.

by Mark D. Goldstein, Goldmark Consultants Inc.

From the time that the Six Sigma quality program was first implemented at GE Appliances (GEA) in 1995, I have had numerous occasions to present an overview of the program to organizations that are considering Six Sigma for their companies. Invariably, someone will be brave enough to ask the question, “What makes Six Sigma different from total quality management or other quality improvement programs that preceded it??It reminds me of the story of the emperor’s new clothes and the little boy who pointed out that the emperor was really naked. If you strip away the commercialization from Six Sigma and see it naked, it doesn’t appear that there is much that is new or different, at first. But there is. And the elements that do distinguish it from past initiatives make all the difference in the success of this program, where its predecessors have failed.

After six years of developing and implementing deployment plans for the Six Sigma program and training the Six Sigma project leaders known as Black Belts (BBs) at a dozen major businesses, I’ve developed what I believe are the success factors to implementing a Six Sigma program. From this broad experience with a variety of businesses, a variety of distinctive corporate cultures and various approaches, I’ve seen what works and what does not. I’ve observed businesses that dedicated themselves to an effort that spoke of commitment and faith in themselves and their resources. I saw outstanding results. For example, LG Electronics?appliance business achieved a 50% reduction in defects from its start in 1995 until the year 2000. I struggled to work with businesses that are intent on finding every shortcut possible. They are still struggling. If the shortcuts worked, Six Sigma would never have been developed.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the success factors and share the benefit of my insights. For those of you who have a short attention span like me, I’ve presented the factors in a convenient list at the beginning of the paper. If you have a few more moments, read on and I’ll discuss the merits of each of these factors. Perhaps one of my most important learnings from this experience was the realization that these success factors have global application to assist in the successful implementation of any major business initiative, not just the Six Sigma program.

Here’s my list of what I believe are those key success factors:

1. Deployment plan.
   
2. Active participation of the senior executives.
   
3. Project reviews.
   
4. Technical support (Master Black Belts).
   
5. Full-time vs. part-time resources.
   
6. Training.
   
7. Communications.
   
8. Project selection.
   
9. Project tracking.
   
10. Incentive program.
    
11. Safe environment.
    
12. Supplier plan.
    
13. Customer “WOWS.?BR>

Success Factor 1—Deployment Plan

I recently heard Stanley Marash of the SAM Group describe Six Sigma as “TQM with a deployment plan.?What did he mean by a deployment plan? Read deployment as “action.?The lack of understanding of this fundamental point (or lack of experience in developing a deployment plan) is a primary factor that contributed to the failure of some of the earlier quality improvement programs. Certainly, not all the precursors to Six Sigma failed. I believe that where they succeeded, you’ll find someone in the organization intuitively understood the need for a well-defined deployment plan and followed through.

Every structure needs a foundation to support it. The key to designing a foundation is to know or anticipate the needs of the structure. In other words, what are the forces that will act upon the structure? They could be a physical entity or an organization or a new business initiative. What strengths need to be built into the foundation? The Six Sigma program, as it was implemented at GEA (and throughout the GE Co.) included the best designed foundation I’ve yet to see for the introduction of a major business initiative.

The program was implemented from the top of the organization on down. The deployment was thorough and detailed. It included restructuring of the organization to provide supporting infrastructure, training, communications and rewards. The leadership was fully committed and supportive. Plans were tracked to ensure follow through. Importantly, it fully employed the success factors that I continue to discuss here.

Success Factor 2—Active Participation ofThe Senior Executives

Neither the Six Sigma program nor any major initiative will survive for long without support and commitment from the senior leadership of the organization. I’m not talking about someone who approves expenditures and assigns someone the task of doing the job and coming back with a report. I’m talking about rolling up your sleeves and wading in with your people.

If we were visiting a company where management was actively participating in the program, what behaviors would we observe?

Clear goals will have been established to define the cost reduction targets, defect reduction target and timing to achieve the targets. The entire employee population will have received clear communications on a frequent basis describing the program, what the objectives are, progress reports and how each employee can participate and contribute. Senior executives will have participated in a training program designed to enable them to intelligently take part in project reviews. They may even have implemented a project of their own. Senior executives will have attended regularly scheduled project reviews. They were active listeners in the reviews and asked probing questions.

What other behaviors would we see from senior managers in a successful Six Sigma program? They would be present at the start of each new wave of training to address the class participants. It’s an opportunity to energize the participants, tell them what is expected of them, give them a commitment of support from management and communicate how important their participation will be toward the success of the program and the business. It is also a time to answer questions to help set people at ease before they venture down this new path full of unknowns.

A senior manager would have attended the closing session of a class to once again thank the participants for their dedication and accomplishments to date. Senior managers should essentially be a visible part of the program.

Could we expect any other part of the organization to carry these responsibilities? Not likely. That’s why this is so critical.

Success Factor 3—Project Reviews

What is the purpose of having a review process? If reviews are conducted on a regularly scheduled basis, the process maintains constant, steady pressure on the BBs and Green Belts (GBs) to drive their projects to a successful completion and closure. Reviews provide oversight to make sure that the BBs and GBs are correctly following the Six Sigma strategy and methodology. They ensure proper use of the Six Sigma tools.

They are not technical reviews. The audience is not there to provide the BB with a technical solution. Questions and comments should be constructive. Senior managers should use the forum to understand what the BBs?accomplishments and insights were in the recently completed phase of the project. Applaud them for their wins and for their creativity. The process should be one that builds confidence and promotes learning. Think of it as a workshop.

Senior managers should also use the project review process to understand what the BBs see as barriers to their progress. Allow the BBs to propose solutions and find out how management can support the solutions, such as funding (is it appropriate, are there alternatives?), manpower and organizational issues.

Success Factor 4—Technical Support

How many times have you purchased a new item for the home that carries those dreaded words: “Some assembly required.?Puts fear in your heart, doesn’t it? Sometimes the manufacturer tries to put you at ease by listing the “few, simple tools?required, except they usually leave out the most important one-—a friend. Actually, I once purchased a grill that included “friend?in the list of required tools to complete the assembly. I appreciated the honesty and the heads-up.

Bring in the Master Black Belts (MBBs). What is their role? Project leaders or BBs will need support from the senior executives or Champions to address organizational issues, but they will also need support to address their technical issues. This is the role of the MBB. They are the teachers, mentors and coaches for the BBs and GBs. If you think this is just fluff that was added into the program by Mikel Harry, it’s not. Too many programs die when the people on the front line run into barriers or stumbling blocks created by technical issues they don’t fully understand. Or the project team thinks it does understand the problem, but its approach fails to deliver the expected results. The wind comes out of the sail, and the project languishes. Eventually the effort is abandoned.

The MBBs meet with their BBs on a regular basis, probably weekly, to evaluate the status of the current project, the approach that the BBs and team are using and the results of the effort. The MBB is there to provide course correction and help troubleshoot the unexpected problems the team may encounter. This is especially critical during BBs?or GBs?early projects, until they get their feet solidly underneath them.

How many MBBs do you need? I’ve seen guidelines, but I think this is best determined by your own situation. Start with your organizational goal and work from there.

• The quality goal (ppm reduction or achieved sigma level), along with the target date, will drive the pace of your efforts.
  
• The size and complexity of your operations will determine the number of projects you’ll need to complete each year to achieve your desired quality levels by the chosen date.
  
• The number of projects and your pace will guide the number of BBs required to implement and lead the projects.
  
• Finally, the number of BBs in the organization will determine the number of MBBs you’ll need to support them. An MBB should expect to spend at least one hour of contact time each week for each BB he or she is mentoring. When deciding on the number of MBBs you need, consider also the time an MBB will devote to classroom training and other deployment related activities.
  

This will help you establish the number of MBBs you’ll need. Start out with a tight workload for the MBBs, and grow as needed.

Where do the MBBs come from? These are your best and brightest. If you can’t afford to stock the program with this level of talent, how do you expect to protect your investment? Choose people who have demonstrated strong leadership skills under fire and the ability to be a change agent. Find people who successfully carried out the responsibilities of a major project and may have also stepped in to fill a breach left by others. You’ll need that kind of character. There is no substitute for tenacity.

Six Sigma is not a magic bullet that solves problems automatically by having some data entered into a few blank fields with prompts from a software program. It requires people who are good thinkers with creativity and strong analytical skills. Finally, select people who want to be part of the effort. If possible, create an atmosphere in which the Six Sigma program is staffed by pull rather than push. In other words, the participants are involved because they were drawn to the opportunity rather than forced to participate.

The ambivalence that I have observed in some training classes generally comes from people who were in the room because they were sent against their will. What effort can you possibly expect from someone who feels that way, especially when the going gets tough? What kind of an ambassador do you think the “I don’t want to be here?folks will make as they move about the operations and interact with other employees? Don’t waste their time or yours.

Success Factor 5—Full-Time vs. Part-Time Resources

One of the early dilemmas faced by many businesses embracing Six Sigma is whether to assign BBs to full-time or part-time implementation of improvement projects. This is a business decision to be made on an individual basis. There isn’t one single answer for all organizations. Here are some of the points to consider when making this decision:

• Is a major competitive threat looming on the near horizon?
  
• Is a major customer close to leaving you because of a high degree of dissatisfaction with your performance?
  
• Is there a major threat to your profitability?
  
• Is a new product introduction program on the near horizon?
  
• Is a major product or service redesign program planned for the near term?
  
• Is the company’s stock performing poorly in the marketplace?
  
• What are your cost or defect reduction goals and the schedule to achieve them?
  

If you’re facing a “significant emotional event,?a part-time effort is not likely to achieve the desired results in the time available. One of my former managers, Robert Hoban, used to tell me, “Don’t start vast projects with ‘half-vast?ideas.?BR>

Business observers were impressed by a target Jack Welch’s set for GE in 1995: Six Sigma by the year 2000. Welch had the full support of the organization, the resources at his disposal were massive and much of those resources were dedicated full-time to the implementation of the improvement projects. Don’t attempt to emulate these objectives and establish aggressive goals unless you are prepared to apply the resources aggressively.

One of my clients carved out 30% of the clerical staff in his business and dedicated them to full-time project implementation. This made a number of people uneasy. They asked, “Who is going to do all the work that these people were doing??We asked, “What is the work that they are actually doing? What portion of their day is actually given to true value-added tasks??If you really have faith in the Six Sigma program and faith that your people will successfully implement their projects and have selected the right projects, then you should believe that the results of the projects are going to greatly reduce non-value-added work and the associated resources.

It took my client about one year for his organization to become comfortable with the decision, but they were successful. Those clerical positions that were redirected were never backfilled.

Success Factor 6—Training

Be sure that the training program is thorough, but don’t overwhelm people. Don’t “sheep dip?people and call it training. I’ve seen that. I visited a training session, a room with 80 people in the class. Most of those in the back and in the corners of the room had mentally checked out and were not engaged at all. What a terrible waste of time and money. People are not machines. The training strategy was developed with a mathematical formula. The CEO decided on the total number of people he wanted trained in one year. The training team calculated the number of trainers and weeks available and computed the number of people to squeeze into the room in each session to meet the target. The team did, in fact, move that number of people through the training process. I did say “move,?didn’t I? The training program does not need to be an attempt to make up, in one effort, all that was neglected for the past decade. You’ll get there, one step at a time.

I met with a company that asked me to help them retrain their BBs. This company had started life as an independent operation. A very large chemical company later acquired them. The new parent firm had adopted Six Sigma and instructed this new division to get on board. My contact explained to me that the initial BB training had included 300 tools. I was impressed. My contact went on to explain that the instructor had covered the tools superficially because of the volume and time available. Sound a little like another mathematical formula being used as a strategy? The program was designed to be a mile wide and an inch deep.

Whoever your instructor is, whatever training material is used, whatever training schedule is selected, be sure that the BBs leave the classroom enabled. I’ve assessed this by giving a pop quiz at the start of each day to test the participants understanding of what I taught the previous day. The project reviews will also reveal the true level of capability of the BBs. If you see that the ability to apply the learning is not reflected in the project reviews, make adjustments in the depth and pace of the training program.

The initial training schedule that we used in 1995 was four sessions, each one week in duration. Each session addressed the four phases of the Six Sigma program as they were defined at that time: measure, analyze, improve and control.

It wasn’t long before we recognized that one of the biggest hurdles to the program was good project selection—identifying the right critical to quality characteristics (CTQs). We thought this to be intuitively obvious at first. It’s not, for most people. So a new phase, define, was added to the training and the project implementation strategy. Be prepared to make adjustments along the way. The design of a program at any point is a model; it’s not the end. As statistician William Hunter said, “All models are wrong, some are better than others.?

Success Factor 7—Communications

Develop a plan to communicate the Six Sigma program to your entire organization.

At the onset of the program communicate:

• What Six Sigma is.
  
• Why the organization is embarking on this journey.
  
• What the business goals are.
  
• What the deployment plan is.
  
• How each employee will be able to participate.

As the program progresses, communicate:

• Training plans.
  
• Projects selected, in progress and completed.
  
• Benefits to the business realized to date.
  
• Customer impact—new customers and incremental sales.
  

Make people feel a part of the program. Don’t let them become bystanders watching from the sidelines. Eventually, you will need all the employees to participate in the program. They will support projects as team members; they will nominate suggestions for projects. If the program launch makes the general employee population feel left out, it will be difficult to gain its support and contribution when the need arises later on—and it will arise. BBs will lead the projects, but they will need the benefit of employees with intimate knowledge and experience to help plan and execute the projects. Leave no employee behind.

Success Factor 8—Project Selection

One of the most frequently discussed frustrations I hear from my clients involves project selection. Let’s first define what makes a good project. Then let’s discuss setting up a process to identify or capture the project candidates.

• Focus on CTQ. A good project is one that will have a measurable impact on a CTQ. In other words, if you picked an appropriate project and completed it successfully, your customer should be able to notice a difference. Bear in mind that this applies to an external or internal customer.
  
  
• The response variable can be easily measured. At GEA, we struggled with the reliability of a measurement system for belt tension. We even went to companies in the automotive industry to get some insight. Basically, they were unable to enlighten us on that one, in spite of having far more experience. They hadn’t cracked the code on this problem either. There are methods of working through challenges like this. Unless the impact of the problem on your customer or finances dictates that you set a high priority, these types of projects are best done when you have had more Six Sigma project experience.
  
  
• There should be a financial benefit to the business. Start with goals that are attainable, such as $50,000 annual savings from a project. I spent 30 minutes one afternoon patiently listening to a BB describe his project to me. Finally, I asked him what impact is experienced by the business from the defect he described. He couldn’t answer that directly. I asked him what cost results from a defect. He said there was none. “Why are you doing this project, then??I asked him. I suspect that there really was a cost in his situation, but it just wasn’t clear to him. But you’ve got to ask the question until you come up with a definitive answer. This is why it’s important to have someone from finance on your project team. At GEA, we even included a finance person on the MBB team, and I believe that it contributed greatly to our success there.
  
  
• Data can be easily collected. Sure, there are projects for which data collection is slow and laborious, especially in low volume operations. While it may be prudent to initially set a lower priority on attacking these because of the difficulty in collecting adequate amounts of data, they may still be important because of their cost of poor quality. One of the lowest volume defects in the appliance business at one time was also one of the most costly: cracked refrigerator liners. There was no repair possible, so the solution, when it occurred, was to replace the entire refrigerator. Once the magnitude of the cost was fully understood, it became the hottest project until it was brought under control.
  
  
• The project has a high probability of success.
  
  
• The project can be completed in four to six months.
  
  
• Don’t leave it to the BBs to select their own projects. These folks are often a great source for new project ideas to add the project hopper, but a small task force with a view of the big picture should make the decisions on which projects to accept and to whom the projects will be assigned.
  
  Establish a team that will be responsible for developing a project selection process. Make them the recipients of all the nominations for projects. Let them screen the ideas for the final choices of projects to be accepted into the project hopper. Their responsibility should include establishing the criteria for setting priorities. The ultimate goal in this process is to have the hopper constantly full. As soon as a BB or GB closes a project, there should be another one waiting to be assigned to him or her.
  
  
• Use the correct approach. The method you choose should take into consideration the information systems, data sources and organizational structure you currently have in place. For example, if your quality organization is centralized, you might leverage an existing position in that organization to be the guru of the project hopper. If you have a formalized customer feedback system or field quality data system, establish the criteria for setting priorities and funnel this data to the project selection team. If these areas are lacking, it should be part of your deployment plan to develop these information sources.
  

The following are various approaches to identifying projects:

1. Gather field quality data. Use Pareto analysis to rank the significant problems and group the data. This will provide focus. When we started our Six Sigma effort in GEA, our first approach to project assignments was to have a BB working on a project in every part of the business. The result was that we were a mile wide and an inch deep. When the first round of projects was completed, there was little movement detected by the business or by the customer. The effect of our effort was somewhat diluted. Later, we started to assign projects that were strategically grouped. For example, several projects were identified in the Bloomington plant operations related to the icemaker. This concentration of projects made a detectable difference in the customer cue we called “ice and water?and made a measurable difference in our field quality results.
   
2. Develop a comprehensive process map of operations that describes the steps to deliver your product or service. Measure the first pass yield at each step of the map. While this may take considerable time and effort, the benefits of establishing a comprehensive baseline will be significant over the long term.
   
3. Benchmark your critical processes (core competencies). What would it take to sustain or achieve
   a competitive level of capability for each process?
   
4. Determine the cost of poor quality. Be careful not to rank the priority of your projects solely on the basis of frequency of occurrence. A high cost of failure for a particular defect can elevate the priority of a project in spite of a low frequency of occurrence.
   

Factor 9—Project Tracking

Establish a system to track all projects. This includes projects submitted for consideration, projects accepted for implementation, projects in progress and projects completed. Keeping tabs of the projects proposed but declined may help you avoid having to plow that ground again if the idea is resubmitted by another source.

A good tracking system is a management tool that:

• Tracks the cumulative results (savings, defect reduction) of completed projects.
  
• Alerts you to projects that are stalled.
  
• Serves as a library of informa- tion that can be researched by the entire company to leverage lessons learned, thereby accel- erating your implementation of improvement projects.
  
• Maintains a history file to ben- efit future process owners as your personnel move about the organization.
  

A good tracking system is simple for adding and updating projects in the system and will include a basic reporting capability. Don’t load the system with bells and whistles. All those extra buttons are programming gymnastics that make the IT group look like heroes and make the system difficult to live with for the users.

Success Factor 10?Incentive Program

I have to admit that I was surprised when I began to discover that BBs were very concerned with the potential impact the Six Sigma program would have on their careers. In retrospect, it’s now clear to me that we were inserting a whole new function into the organization without establishing the path in and the path out.

When my manager at GEA told me that I had been selected as a candidate for the Six Sigma program and asked if I were interested, I asked him, “What is Six Sigma??He replied, ?I don’t know. It has something to do with quality, but I need your answer by tomorrow morning.?Most people aren’t going to take the leap of faith that I did.

Folks who are considering or are being considered for the BB role need to understand how they will be able to transition back into more traditional roles in the organization. Many of the people I’ve talked to feel that the program is actually going to sidetrack them from their aspirations and they will fall behind their peers.

The following list shows what I’ve observed that successfully encouraged people and motivated them:

1. Recruit your best.
   
2. Create rewards that can be achieved in the short term (instant cash awards to recognize exceptional effort or creativity).
   
3. Create rewards for meeting individual goals and team goals. This was my first experience with a manager who set a team goal. It had a tremendous impact on our first group of MBBs.
   We didn’t let anyone fail. I never saw people bond like this. It was one of the best experiences of my career at GE.
   
4. Advancement into leadership positions in the business requires experience as a BB. The message in this is clear. Six Sigma will not derail your career. It is the career path.
   

Success Factor 11—A Safe Environment

Real problems will not surface if people are afraid of repercussions. I was taken aback one day when a project manager for one of my larger clients expressed concern about lies that had been told in the past. Being somewhat naive, I wasn’t certain what he meant at first. He proceeded to explain to me that for years many of the line managers had been lying to upper management about the true state of their respective operations. Until now, the line managers had been able to hide this. Now, the project manager lamented, how can they come forward with requests for help to solve problems which they had heretofore claimed did not exist? How could they suggest projects to correct processes that their reports had previously described as capable?

The mistake in the past was to hold people accountable for operations without:

• Clearly communicating the expectations.
  
• Providing capable processes or equipment.
  
• Enabling them by providing the necessary tools and training to make necessary improvements.
  
• Giving them the authority to intervene or stop the line to make improvements.
  

The frustration of lacking one or more of these necessary enablers, which are the responsibility of management, had the predictable outcome of fostering an environment lacking integrity. If this reflects in some small way the situation in your own organization, try establishing a moratorium on floggings and executions. Use the Six Sigma program as the platform to establish these management responsibilities noted earlier.

The troops won’t come around overnight. It will take some time for you to earn or restore mutual trust. But if you don’t establish a safe environment where people will offer real problems begging for real solutions, you’ll find your organization working on the projects with too little impact. You’ll miss the real opportunities.

I worked for a plant manager who once told me that he didn’t take a walk through the shop without “winging someone.?While he thought that this established a healthy respect for his authority (a euphemism for fear, in this case), the long-term impact of this is mistrust and a lack of real progress.

Success Factor 12—Develop a Supplier Plan

In today’s world of specialization, many businesses have moved away from vertical integration and focus their operations on their core competencies. This results in increased dependence on suppliers who are now really strategic partners. Even if you’re in a service business, you likely are facing this same environment. If you think you can improve the quality of your goods or services without engaging your strategic suppliers, you are going to overlook a huge opportunity. A supplier with poor quality becomes your weak link.

Suppose you are in a consulting business and you have developed training material for a client. You need to have the materials published to deliver a training program. If the printer doesn’t collate the pages properly, leaves out pages, prints them illegibly or delivers the material late, your program is in trouble—no matter the quality of your training content. You need look no further than Ford Motor Co.’s recent experience with Firestone Tires to see the effect of a supplier’s quality on the final product. Consider for a moment the disproportionate weight the quality of the tire had on the final product (based on the acquisition cost of four tires vs. total manufacturing cost of the vehicle).

Get your key suppliers involved. We struggled at GE because many of our suppliers were also selling to our competition. We worried that helping our suppliers improve the products manufactured for us would ultimately result in improvement to the products they manufactured for the competition. What are the choices? Help the supplier or not. If we don’t help our suppliers improve, the quality of the parts, materials, assemblies or services could be substandard to the rest of the product or services we supply our customers. Therefore, it’s really not a choice.

While it’s true your supplier’s improved capabilities may also benefit any of your competitors using the same source, your benefits will be deliberate and planned while theirs will be inadvertent. Yours will likely be implemented first; your competitors will be last.

You should remain one step ahead of the competition. Regardless of how you approach this issue, your competition will always try to copy your successes. It didn’t take long for Whirlpool to attempt to copy GE’s Six Sigma program, albeit under a different name. This is unavoidable. What you can do is be there first.

How can you get the suppliers involved? It would be great if you could hold hands with all your suppliers and have a revival. You could all walk into the world of Six Sigma together, but that’s not realistic. Most of them will take the “show me?approach or say, “I’m too busy?(chopping wood, so there’s no time to sharpen my axe) or it’s too expensive.

Identify your strategic suppliers. Include a key member of strategic suppliers?organizations in your own training program. Be sure the person selected is a valued member of the supplier’s organization who is expected to remain with them for the long term.

Be sure the supplier’s executive management makes a firm commitment to support its trainee. If this person fails, it will take tremendous effort to breathe life back into the initiative. We had a couple of supplier representatives who came to class or not and worked on their project or not. They took it very casually. You can’t afford that waste of time and opportunity.

Success Factor 13—Customer ‘WOWS?BR>

Many businesses that embrace Six Sigma have focused their effort on improving the bottom line—taking out cost. Remember why you’re in business. It’s to make a profit. Your basic strategy to achieve that purpose is to supply the needs of a customer. If the work you do each day is closely linked to this goal (making stunning PowerPoint charts doesn’t count) and aligned with this strategy, the benefits will follow close behind as lower costs and increased sales.

Companies like GEA have implemented projects with a direct impact on their top line (sales revenue). Some of the projects so impressed customers that GEA realized increases in order size, new orders and new levels of customer loyalty. Loyalty is not a commodity in today’s marketplace. This was accomplished by:

• Choosing projects that could have a direct impact immediately felt by the customer. In the case of GEA, the immediate customers are the distributors or megadealers. Some of their CTQs are cycle time (order to remittance time), accuracy of orders delivered and accuracy of invoices.
  
  
• Implementing a project in which the boundary extends into the customer’s operations—sort of a good neighbor approach. One colleague of mine spent three days working on a process mapping exercise with one of her customers. Much of this map addressed activity inside the customer’s business. At the end of the exercise, she and the customer’s team had identified nine paths in the map that looped back, mostly to one person.
  
  Someone on the team commented this was “stupid.?The person who was the point of convergence for these loops said, “I’ve been trying to tell you guys for months, but nobody would listen.?BR>
  Having identified the nonvalue-added steps, the team was able to simplify and take three weeks out of a process that formerly had a total cycle time of four months. The customer received an award from a statewide construction trade organization. My colleague earned new business and a new level of respect and customer loyalty.
  

A Quantum Leap Forward

If you’re starting a Six Sigma program, these factors will help you achieve a successful implementation. If you’ve already launched your program and you are not achieving the progress you were expecting, these factors will help you get your train back on the tracks.

This requires an honest assessment of your current plan, resources and own contributions. Nothing is improved or corrected when you’re in denial. As you evaluate each of the factors I’ve described here, can you honestly say your organization has fully implemented it, or have you looked for shortcuts? The Six Sigma philosophy says we need to determine the key input variables in a process in order to manage and optimize the process output. Think of these success factors as the key input variables to your program.

My most profound insight from my Six Sigma implementation experience is the strategies I’ve described here have global application for implementation of any major initiative. These success factors and strategies are not limited to Six Sigma. Six Sigma has not only revolutionized strategies to improve quality; it has redefined them to assure successful implementation of major initiatives in any organization wishing to make a quantum leap forward.