Thursday
Nov192009
Constancy of Purpose
Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 2:05AM
Recently I was engaged in a discussion where someone floated the idea Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma initiatives are focused more on training and certification than anything else. As a result, more money is spent than generated. Why is this? Does it always have to be this way? What are the criteria for success?
Lean Six Sigma, Six Sigma, Total Quality Control, and other are all organizational transformation initiatives. If treated as flavor of the month, panaceas, silver bullet, or magic wand, wherein spectacular results are expected with little management and leadership, the initiative will most likely result in a cash and manpower drain on the organization. Future programs and initiatives will be viewed with skepticism by the employee base and thus have a diminished probability of success.
Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s first point, of his famous Fourteen Points, in part addresses this. “Constancy of Purpose” means an organization that is not moving from initiative to initiative to programs as an ice cream shop may feature flavors of the month. There is no magic bullet, no panacea. An enlightened management team must set the direction and purpose including the tools, techniques, programs, and initiatives that will take the organization in that direction, toward the goals. This purpose must have constancy so that the employee base knows this is how the organization does business and conducts itself. The management needs to ensure the constancy of this purpose and drive for results from the select few programs and initiatives that are driving this organization towards the goals.
The use of the words “select few” in front of programs and initiatives is key. The fewer and better managed the initiatives and programs the less they are programs and initiatives. Over time they simply become the way business is done. They become the modus operandi of the company. In short, they become ingrained into the company.
Toyota had the Toyota Production System. It was truly inseparable from the company, the culture, and simply how they operated. It became a source of competitive advantage. It was owned and driven by management. It was theirs’ first and then became the organizations. Other companies certainly tried to adopt and adapt the system. Some succeeded. Many more failed or failed to achieve the results because the management team did not own and drive the initiative. Without that leadership and constancy of purpose, the system did not become ingrained and the workforce could see management putting priorities elsewhere. The initiative would just fade away leaving a litany of posters and barcharts that have not been updated in months in the wake.
Total Quality failed in the US because of just this. Without management direction, guidance, ownership i.e. constancy of purpose, Total Quality Teams tried to make a difference but ended up focusing on what they could influence. Sometimes the teams made a real difference but in many cases the teams focused on really soft issues like the assortment of ice cream in the vending machines. Management who were probably reluctant to adopt the program looked at this as confirmation that the “damned thing didn’t work.” Total Quality died an awkward death.
The difference between TQ and Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma was that the latter programs were designed to be owned and led by senior management. They set the priorities and issues for the teams to focus on. They were obliged, by design, to review the project, ensure results were achieved, and then to repeat the process. This made Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma work. It is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for success.
I will close with my favorite quote from Kaoru Ishikawa. He is referring to Total Quality but you could replace it with Lean Six Sigma and it is just a meaningful.
“If there is no leadership from the top, stop promoting TQC” p. 17 Ishikawa, Kaoru, What is Total Quality Control?, Englewood Hills, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1985.
Lean Six Sigma, Six Sigma, Total Quality Control, and other are all organizational transformation initiatives. If treated as flavor of the month, panaceas, silver bullet, or magic wand, wherein spectacular results are expected with little management and leadership, the initiative will most likely result in a cash and manpower drain on the organization. Future programs and initiatives will be viewed with skepticism by the employee base and thus have a diminished probability of success.
Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s first point, of his famous Fourteen Points, in part addresses this. “Constancy of Purpose” means an organization that is not moving from initiative to initiative to programs as an ice cream shop may feature flavors of the month. There is no magic bullet, no panacea. An enlightened management team must set the direction and purpose including the tools, techniques, programs, and initiatives that will take the organization in that direction, toward the goals. This purpose must have constancy so that the employee base knows this is how the organization does business and conducts itself. The management needs to ensure the constancy of this purpose and drive for results from the select few programs and initiatives that are driving this organization towards the goals.
The use of the words “select few” in front of programs and initiatives is key. The fewer and better managed the initiatives and programs the less they are programs and initiatives. Over time they simply become the way business is done. They become the modus operandi of the company. In short, they become ingrained into the company.
Toyota had the Toyota Production System. It was truly inseparable from the company, the culture, and simply how they operated. It became a source of competitive advantage. It was owned and driven by management. It was theirs’ first and then became the organizations. Other companies certainly tried to adopt and adapt the system. Some succeeded. Many more failed or failed to achieve the results because the management team did not own and drive the initiative. Without that leadership and constancy of purpose, the system did not become ingrained and the workforce could see management putting priorities elsewhere. The initiative would just fade away leaving a litany of posters and barcharts that have not been updated in months in the wake.
Total Quality failed in the US because of just this. Without management direction, guidance, ownership i.e. constancy of purpose, Total Quality Teams tried to make a difference but ended up focusing on what they could influence. Sometimes the teams made a real difference but in many cases the teams focused on really soft issues like the assortment of ice cream in the vending machines. Management who were probably reluctant to adopt the program looked at this as confirmation that the “damned thing didn’t work.” Total Quality died an awkward death.
The difference between TQ and Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma was that the latter programs were designed to be owned and led by senior management. They set the priorities and issues for the teams to focus on. They were obliged, by design, to review the project, ensure results were achieved, and then to repeat the process. This made Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma work. It is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for success.
I will close with my favorite quote from Kaoru Ishikawa. He is referring to Total Quality but you could replace it with Lean Six Sigma and it is just a meaningful.
“If there is no leadership from the top, stop promoting TQC” p. 17 Ishikawa, Kaoru, What is Total Quality Control?, Englewood Hills, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1985.
Reader Comments