GROUP PROJECT
Group Project
Justin Habig, Karie Phillips, Skye Seal, Craig Stewart, & Austin Wakefield
Liberty University
BMAL 504 – Leading Organizational Change
Group Project
Part 1
Description of Organizational Change
DOD and Lean Six Sigma
In 1986 the Motorola corporation developed a methodology for continuous process im-
provement (CPI). The idea that routine processes, studied with data analysis, leads to smaller,
more direct changes which have the effect of reducing the stress of change, reducing process and
material errors, and increase efficiency, (Pyzdek, 2003). This change led to a reputation of qual-
ity and excellence for the next 20 years, (Uphaus-Conner, 2016). Lean, developed by Toyota in
the 1940s, looks for organizational waste removal opportunities across the operational, adminis-
trative, and strategic improvement circles, (Kilpatrick, 2003). Lean Six Sigma (LSS) is a combi-
nation of Lean and Six Sigma. Alone, Lean lacks statistical control and organizational infrastruc-
ture, and Six Sigma “is a complex method that does not emphasize process efficiency,” (Ha, Mc-
Coy, Taylor, Kirk, Fry, & Modi, 2016, p. 582).
In 2008 the Department of Defense (DOD) determined that the combined process im-
provement systems of Lean and Six Sigma (LSS) could aid the U.S. military across the warfight-
ing domains and the ever contentious budget constraints. LSS became policy with the Depart-
ment of Defense Directive 5010.42, (Chamberlain, 2009). Over the intervening 22 years, the
DOD recognized that America’s military advantages were eroding due to aging equipment, na-
tive research development and espionage by adversary powers, and the rise of adversarial state
spending on military budgets. The hope was that Six Sigma could be applied to improve pro-
cesses by identifying value-added steps and waste, discovering the opportunity for prevention,
and identifying and tackling bottlenecks (Pydek & Keller, 2019).
Departmental Implementation
Army
“The Army has trained 5,700 ‘Green Belts,’ 2,4000 ‘Black Belts,’ and 175 ‘Master Belts‘
as of 2011,” (OBT, 2011). 500 Green Belts and 150 Black Belts were allocated to operate in the
G-8. These efficiency professionals use monthly meetings, project web sites, e-mails, and phone
calls to maintain a community focusing on around 50 to 60 ongoing projects at any given time,”
(FORSCOM, 2018). The utilization of Lean Six Sigma in the Army has saved them $19.1 billion
over 13 years in the categories of fielding equipment, repair part inventories, and military sup-
plies. The FORSCOM G-8 also travels across the United States monthly to offer classes and
training to promote discipline, accountability, and innovation.
The most significant program that has effectively changed through the program was the
release of the Global Combat Support Systems-Army (GCSS-Army). Since the start of the pro-
gram, which began as a complete bust, LSS proves to be more and more useful as the process
continues to evolve and update. Unit supply personnel spent two weeks in courses leaning to
adapt to the new methods of the CPI, and now they have an enhanced grasp on how it is meant to
function. “The initial goal of the LSS project was to reduce the use of the wrong turn in advice
codes by 50 percent and decrease the improper credit dollar value by 50 percent, which would
result in a more accurate status of funds reviews by July 15, 2015,” (Smith, 2016).
Navy
A primary approach for performance improvement is LSS. Several elements of the U.S.
Navy and Marine Corps have engaged in LSS activities “to include the training of over 500
Black Belts and 1,500 Green Belts that have facilitated 2,800 events and projects (Kunesh, 2007,
p. 3). The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery of the U.S. Navy began training health care leaders
and staff in LSS in 2006 (Ha, et al., 2016). LSS was used to optimize the health and readiness of
the brigade of Midshipmen, all of whom need vaccinations during their in-processing period (Ha,
et al., 2016). The LSS methodology provides tools necessary to standardize the immunizations
process for the U.S. Navy (Ha, et al., 2016).
“The Naval Sea Systems Command, the largest of the Navy’s five system commands, in-
troduces a program called Navsea Lean,” which is based on LSS (Lean, 2019, para. 1). The ap-
plication has been brad, with 30 Navsea organizations forming part of the initiative. Additionally,
this program has saved two hundred million U.S. dollars during the first year of implementation
(Lean, 2019).
Marine Corp
The Marine Corps, as is traditional with any task given to them, has readily adopted and
enthusiastically implemented. Rivera, (2019) states, “Marines and civilian Marines at Quantico
have bought into the organizational tool so completely that its benefits in providing quality prod-
ucts faster and for less money can be found in nearly every segment of operations,” (p.??). “Two
units that have embraced Lean Six Sigma are Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Ac-
tivity (MCOTEA) and the Regional Contracting Office (RCO)” (Uphaus-Conner, 2016). The In-
stallation Personnel Administration Center and Safety Division, Weapons Training Battalion, and
the Headquarters and Service Battalion are a few of the commands that have sent personnel for
training in Lean Six Sigma (Rivera, 2019).
Air Force
The Air Force has found the Logistics and Maintenance squadrons most primed for LSS
implementation. Logistics Readiness Division’s Vehicle Management Flight at the Randolph Air
Force Base, dispatch process has been reduced from 14 to 10 steps with time consequently de-
creasing from 59 minutes to just 22 minutes, (“Towards a lean mean Air Force”, 2017). The
345th Maintenance Squadron’s Aerospace Ground Equipment Flight Members of the 354th
Maintenance Squadron’s Aerospace at the Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, reorganization of the
Flight into five cells for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance has brought about a 30% reduc-
tion in manpower. The equipment related decline was 20%, (“Towards a lean mean Air Force”,
2017).
Fewer within the Air Force flying community receive the LSS training. There is a misper-
ception that the time spent away for certification is not as valuable to the squadron as the mem-
ber’s presence and capability to participate in their duties in the office and the aircraft. It is also
not uncommon for Airmen in Operations Groups to have not even heard of the concept of LSS,
much less knowing that training is available to them on most bases.
Room for Improvement
The observed need for ongoing organizational change with the implemented policy is to
continue to democratize LSS training. The trend has been for the military branches to find a
niche or low source of low hanging fruit that can readily benefit from LSS data analysis and im-
provement recommendations. While such venues are adequate proving grounds, they do not fully
meet the intentions of DOD Directive 5010.42, pushing CPI and LSS to all levels and functions.
The training in critical analysis and problem-solving that occurs from Greenbelt, and Blackbelt
training are skillsets that benefit the organization, even when provided to the newest warfighters.
Part 2
Analysis of current situation
Recommendations
References
Article: Lean Six Sigma in the U.S. Air Force - Towards a lean mean Air Force. (2017, March
17). Retrieved November 24, 2019, from https://www.6sigma.us/armed-forces/lean-six-
sigma-in-us-air-force-towards-lean-mean-air-force/.
Chamberlain, G. (2009). Lean six sigma and the department of defense: Adopting LSS principles
will produce workable process improvements, asserts this author. Armed Forces Comp-
troller, 54(3), 37.
FORSCOM. (2018, July 24). STAND-TO! Retrieved from https://www.army.mil/standto/2018-
07-24.
Ha, C., McCoy, D. A., Taylor, C. B., Kirk, K. D., Fry, R. S., & Modi, J. R. (2016). Using lean
six sigma methodology to improve a mass immunizations process at the united states
naval academy. Military Medicine, 181(6), 582-588. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-15-00247
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Lean principles. Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 68, 1-5.
Kunesh, N. (2007). Department of the Navy: Lean six sigma.
OBT. (2011, April 10). The Army's Lean Six Sigma Program. Retrieved from
https://www.army.mil/article/54678/the_armys_lean_six_sigma_program.
Pyzdek, T. (2003). The six sigma. Estados Unidos: Mcgraw-hill.
Pyzdek, T., & Keller, P. (2018). Six Sigma Handbook, Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Smith, M. S. (2016). Lean six sigma team improves the turn-in process for global combat sup-
port system-army: Army logistician. Army Sustainment, 48(3), 57-61. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1790452109?accountid=12085
Rivera, J. (2019, April 26). Lean Six Sigma is available to help commands become more effi-
cient. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.pyzdekinstitute.com/
blog/six-sigma/marines-embrace-six-sigma-training.html.
Uphaus-Conner, A. (2016, March 10). Lean Six Sigma is available to help commands become
more efficient. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from
https://www.quantico.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/689907/lean-six-
sigma-is-available-to-help-commands-become-more-efficient/.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
