case study

QP • www.qualityprogress.com64

3.4 Per Million BY T.M. KUBIAK

The Way to Fail How to unsuccessfully charter projects and miss expectations

SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I received a call from a lean Six Sigma leader with a

large multinational organization who was

concerned the company was having great

difficulty completing projects.

Senior management at the organization,

which had about 150 active projects and

many more in the pipeline, was becoming

impatient with the lack of results.

A few projects had been completed,

but not enough to satisfy management

expectations. Significant resources were

being invested in this strategic initiative

with little or no results to show.

At the end of the conversation, I

agreed to review the organization’s lean

Six Sigma initiative and supporting

processes, and then we could determine

next steps.

Sizing things up Upon arriving at the organization’s head-

quarters, I received a warm greeting and

was quickly ushered into a nice confer-

ence room where I met the lean Six Sigma

leader’s direct reports. They were mostly

Master Black Belts (MBB) who supported

different aspects of the organization. I

soon began asking general questions to

get a feel for the size and scope of the

deployment:

• How were Black Belt (BB) candidates

selected?

• How were team members and subject

matter experts (SME) selected?

• How were projects selected?

• How were projects assigned?

• How were projects reviewed and by

whom?

• What were the organization’s strate-

gies?

• Could I review the project charters?

• Could I attend any meetings or project

reviews going on during my visit?

A lively discussion ensued as everyone

wanted to answer the consultant’s ques-

tions to demonstrate his or her proficiency

in lean Six Sigma.

The staff took each of my questions to

heart and provided me with answers like

a recruit would answer a drill sergeant. I

was assured that BB candidates were rig-

orously selected and only the best of the

best were nominated. However, a defined

process was not evident.

I learned that the team leader—who

was often the BB—was the person who

identified team members and SMEs.

This individual identified representative

positions (for example, a manufacturing

engineer) for team members’ spots and,

if known, individuals by name for SMEs.

In some instances, the level of support

to the team—in terms of the percent-

age of time contributed per week—was

specified.

In general, projects were selected after

debate and a majority vote by participants

in the project selection meeting. These

participants, however, were ad hoc and

constantly changing. Some were even

substitutes for substitutes.

Projects were assigned to BBs based

on perceived availability. No attempt was

made to reconcile specific BBs to specific

projects based on skills or other criteria.

MBBs and the project’s sponsor or cham-

pion reviewed projects.

I was provided one Excel file of

charters for projects—both active and in

the pipeline—and a second one with the

organization’s strategies. I also learned

that several team meetings and project

reviews were scheduled in the coming

days. This necessitated changing my travel

schedule, but it is always worth watching

the organization in action.

Back at the hotel Later that day, I reviewed the project char-

ters and strategies on my own. The project

charter file was sequenced according to

the order in which the charters had been

received.

It was apparent that no attempt had

been made to analyze them. Analyze is ac-

December 2011 • QP 65

tually a strong word to use. Simple sorting

of the files is usually all that are required

to provide significant insight. From this,

certain things became clear about the

projects:

• 15% lacked a sponsor.

• 23% lacked a meaningful business case.

• 31% lacked a problem statement.

• 72% had a meaningless goal statement.

• 65% lacked well-bounded project

scopes.

• Most did not include even a high-level

project plan or an expected project

duration.

• 18% did not identify team members, but

many did identify SMEs.

• 8% could be considered linked to

the organization’s strategies without

stretching the concept of linking.

In addition, each BB had at least five

active projects, and the percentages ex-

ceed 100% because some project charters

contained multiple problems. Also, the

percentages applied similarly to active and

pipeline projects.

Interpreting the data A high-level, rather superficial review

of the project charter file revealed some

astonishing issues:

• Some projects didn’t have sponsors.

The fact that such projects existed indi-

cated not just a fundamental flaw in the

selection process, but also brought into

question management’s overall com-

mitment, leadership and engagement in

this strategic initiative.

• Projects were seemingly batched by

assigning a certain number to a given

BB. Bits and pieces of projects were

being worked on and, consequently, the

organization had many projects that

were works in process.

• Business cases failed to identify

estimated cost savings and link indi-

vidual projects to the organization’s

strategies. You have to wonder how a

project could be assigned resources

without such information.

• The problem statement didn’t identify

the pain the problem is causing. Again,

how can a project be justified if you

cannot point to the pain?

• Goals statements were missing base-

line and target information, identifica-

tion of the metric that will be improved

and by when. When such information

is missing or meaningless, projects

have no defined stopping criteria. Re-

member: specific, measureable, achiev-

able, relevant and timely (SMART)

goals.

• Projects lacked well-bounded scopes

and tended to wander aimlessly. They

seemed to be never ending and were

always changing direction.

• There were no project plans, which

are necessary to understand resource

requirements, including human capital

and funding, and potential relationships

with other projects.

• Team members weren’t analyzed to

identify the drain projects might place

on specific functional groups in the

organization. When this is known,

projects can be scheduled appropri-

ately.

After analyzing projects, it was dis-

covered that many repeatedly identified

the same SMEs. Again, this scenario

could place an excessive drain on some

individuals and, in extreme cases, may

prohibit them from completing their

daily work.

The preceding list contains realistic

and highly probable consequences. A

few hours of simple analysis would have

provided the organization with this infor-

mation.

Watching the meetings As noted earlier, I was able to observe

three tollgate reviews and learned the

following:

• At the first one, the sponsor had sent a

substitute who, unfortunately, did not

feel empowered to make a pass-or-fail

decision, probably because the substi-

tute did not receive sponsor training.

Consequently, no tollgate outcome

was determined at the meeting. Also,

the team leader, unaware the sponsor

would not be attending, was not able to

cancel the meeting earlier.

• At the second one, the sponsor did not

ask any sponsor-appropriate questions

for the analysis tollgate review. Instead,

he decided to revisit the scope and goal

of the project, and he actually wanted

to increase the scope and add a goal.

The BB was dumbfounded, yet received

no support from the attending MBB.

• The third tollgate review appeared well

coordinated. The sponsor was prepared

and asked the appropriate questions.

The BB’s presentation was clear, pre-

cise and professional.

I remembered this project from my

earlier review of the project charters

because it was one of the few linked

to strategies. The project easily passed

the tollgate from the improve phase to

the control phase.

In addition, I attended several team

meetings and noticed the team leaders

took attendance.

In general, at least 25% of the team

members did not even show up at the

meeting. About half of those who did had

not completed their assigned work on

time. Those who didn’t attend didn’t notify

Poor planning along with poor execution leads to poor results.

T.M. KUBIAK is founder and president of Performance Improvement Solutions, an independent consulting organization in Weddington, NC. He is coauthor of The Certified Six Sigma Black Belt Handbook (ASQ Quality Press, 2009) and author of The Certified Six Sigma Master Black Belt Handbook (ASQ

Quality Press, 2012). Kubiak, a senior member of ASQ, serves on many ASQ boards and committees, and is a past chair of ASQ’s Publication Management Board.

the team leader in advance. Expectedly,

the effectiveness of these meetings was

seriously diminished.

After attending this disappointing

group of meetings, I asked a few BBs

about attendance. They said they were

not required to keep attendance and

assignment completion records, but it

was a “cover your backside” maneuver. A

cursory review of several of their records

indicated that my observations were

business as usual and not anomalous

behavior.

Debriefing the leader Due to the sensitive nature of my dis-

coveries, I met with the lean Six Sigma

leader later in the week. He was aston-

ished at my findings and admitted he had

no idea about the state of the project

charters or level of team participation.

Given his role as the implementation

leader, this admission was concerning.

I had expected at least some level of

awareness.

After the initial presentation of the

findings, we cycled back through and dis-

cussed each one in detail, along with the

interpretation and impact on the imple-

mentation of the lean Six Sigma initiative.

The leader agreed with them and under-

stood the need for immediate action.

This discussion also yielded some

insight into the current state of affairs. At

the outset, senior management wanted

projects started immediately. Subsequent-

ly, numerous projects were identified and

launched.

Later, a few MBBs and BBs where

hired, creating a loose lean Six Sigma or-

ganizational structure without the benefit

of a leader.

Last, a leader was hired who was not

a lean Six Sigma professional because

the organization decided to promote an

existing manager from within. The orga-

nization was built from the bottom up.

The path forward During the next several months, the lean

Six Sigma leader and I worked closely to

convince senior management of the need

to suspend many projects and charters.

This was a hard-fought victory.

We incurred significant resistance

that appeared to be more rooted in the

culture of the organization than in good

management practices.

Apparently, it was perceived as a

corporate sin to terminate or suspend

projects. Perhaps it was viewed as a

personal failure rather than management

duty to act on current knowledge and

information.

Also, we developed plans to:

• Review project charters and related

training to ensure it was appropriate.

• Reduce the number of projects as-

signed to BBs.

• Implement a rigorous project selection

and prioritization process.

• Implement a rigorous BB selection

process.

• Establish a “no sponsor, no project”

rule.

• Clarify roles and responsibilities, with

an emphasis on MBBs coaching BBs.

• Review sponsor training to ensure it is

appropriate and delivered to all proj-

ect sponsors before they can accept

responsibility for a project.

• Integrate team member participation

and performance into the perfor-

mance appraisal process of team

members.

• Hold functional managers of team

members responsible for ensuring

their employees support the project

teams to which they are assigned.

• Institute a series of hierarchal reviews

so various levels of management have

the opportunity periodically to observe

project progress.

The list is only representative of the

plans moving forward, and it should be

obvious that several are long term. Now,

projects are beginning to move through

the tollgate process more quickly and

many with better-than-expected results.

It would seem that proper planning

suffered because this organization’s lead-

ership desired fast results. Consequently,

poor planning along with poor execution

leads to poor results. It also leads the

organization to restart its lean Six Sigma

strategic initiative. QP

QP • www.qualityprogress.com66

3.4 Per Million

Proper planning suffered because this organization’s leadership desired fast results.

SuGGESTiON bOx Do you have an idea for a future 3.4 per Million column or a topic you’d like to see one of our columists address? email your suggestions to [email protected].