A report by the Wall Street Journal on issues that stymie the success of Six Sigma and other process improvement methodologies offered up the story of one aerospace company that could be considered a poster child for project failures.
The company went through some typical phases as projects were launched. It started with the honeymoon phase. The teams were enthusiastic at the learning opportunity and happily jumped in to do what it took to make the project a success. Senior management was paying close attention to the initiative, so managers made sure employees understood their participation was not optional. Successes were shared; team members were rewarded.
Then came the reality of the marriage. Maintaining success was difficult, especially when the Six Sigma expert leading the project left for the next initiative, leaving the team without an objective voice and a project manager to keep them on the path. Individual agendas were pushed, agreement on goals moving forward was hard to come by, focus was lost and performance regressed.
Over time, no one was working on early successes to hold all the gains together. Morale diminished, only the bare minimum was done on new projects, and faulty reporting led to misleading communications on project success. Nobody wanted to admit to senior management that the projects were experiencing widespread failure.
In fact, this company initiated more than 100 Six Sigma projects to find that fewer than half generated lasting gains after two years. It illustrates the widely cited statistic that 60% of corporate Six Sigma initiatives fall short of goals.
There are any number of reasons why these projects fail, and this company experienced many of them to at least some extent. By understanding the chief points of failure, managers can do a better job of anticipating potential trouble spots in their organizations and structuring their initiatives to most effectively offset the risks. These include:
- Lack of senior management support and involvement: It’s not just support that makes a difference. That too easily can devolve into lip service. Senior management also must take an active role in the improvement programs so they have a direct, unfiltered perspective of what it takes to succeed and how everyone will know it has been achieved. Plus, that’s what leadership looks like – walking the talk, championing the process. Ultimately, Six Sigma is about creating a culture shift in service to the goal of achieving continuous improvement. Engagement of senior management is the key factor that drives significant organizational change.
- Cutting short Six Sigma experts’ involvement: The Six Sigma leader’s role must be consistent over time to keep projects from derailing. This is the person who monitors progress, ensures performance remains tied to demonstrable improvements over time, and establishes an environment where people continue learning, training is ongoing and resources are maintained. A one- to two-year continuous stint is recommended; if the financial wherewithal limits that kind of personnel commitment, the leader can be assigned to several programs part-time. It’s also wise to train managers to take over that role.
- Failure to link programs to financial objectives and adequately measure results: The reality is that Six Sigma initiatives are defined by the value they create for an organization: Return on investment. Realistic savings over time. More generically speaking, the level of shareholder value that can be delivered versus effort expended. Moreover, it takes rigorous monitoring of performance metrics to ensure progress against goals – and enable adjustments to the program to keep it on track. A study by one statistical software developer found that Six Sigma projects that weren’t solidly linked to financial objectives experienced a 54% failure rate, twice the rate of projects that were linked.
- Lack of fit with DMAIC fundamentals: Another study found other issues revolving around DMAIC (define, measure analyze, improve and control) – the basic Six Sigma process improvement methodology. In some instances, the project was too small for the kind of rigor called for by the methodology. More of an issue was the tendency to force inappropriate projects into the DMAIC format – the selection of a software vendor, for example, or the installation of a finishing line on a factory floor. As author and consultant Praveen Gupta put it: “Improvement realized through the rigor of Six Sigma methodologies must be unquestionably significant, must make the process look different, and generate enough savings to be shared with the team members and still increase the corporate bottom line.”
- Failure to launch: If the solution is not implemented, it’s a waste of time and resources and erodes the value that Six Sigma should ultimately create for the organization in the name of continuous improvement. But it happens too often. Improvements are not an easy or fast fix – and both management and the project team can get restless (or worse). Impatient managers may boycott projects – which is why it’s critical to enlist senior executive involvement and encourage a culture where the Six Sigma leaders have the clout to keep projects from derailing.
Any one of these factors can spell trouble for organizations hoping to realize the Six Sigma promise of continuous improvement. Those that pay close attention to the people and project issues from the outset will benefit by experiencing Six Sigma initiatives that measure up and deliver.
