Can Six Sigma Fix Government?

The Army claims that Lean Six Sigma is working (note: six sigma without lean will do the gov't little good). "In fiscal year 2010, the US Army produced $1 billion in cost savings and $3.3 billion in cost avoidances as a result of LSS"

Does lean six sigma work in a unionized government?

Buzz words! That is what the politicians are trying to use. Admittedly there are a few "common sense" suggestions in Six Sigma that are not "common" enough. Unfortunately some people just use their heads as a place to hang a hat.

Six Sigma can do very little to private agenda. And private agenda does nothing toward helping Six Sigma. Government would benefit more by studying Methods and Time Management than Six Sigma.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical today, but should the question be

"Can anything fix government?"

Lean six sigma will work if it is implemented properly and the results implemented. (But politicians have other priorities for themselves and their backing and so the true lean six sigma outcome would be diluted, modified, adjusted and corrupted till it resembled any other program or straategy.

I'll stop there otherwise this will turn into a rant.

I think only ISO 900x could do the job... if anything could.

although traditionally, a bloody revolution is what really works... for a while.

Winners write the history books.

As with politics it works best when all parts are in place and no ownership or territory is disputed. Responsibility to make the best of this mess lies not with 6sigma but with common sense.

I'm on the case, Ky.

I'll have to disagree.

I think it is like building and operating a boiler system.

There has to be measurement, monitoring, and controls that are solidly implemented. that policy or program covering spending needs to be firmly established, and not adjustable without review of the entire system. If you try to crank up the temperature mindlessly on a boiler, the corresponding pressure buildup will blow it apart.

Same with governemnt spending, without a controlled proportion to the income and gdp.

Chris

There has to be measurement, monitoring, and controls that are solidly implemented.

bingo Chris

Where there are problems is when management does not totally buy into the program.

And to install and initiate it, requires total commitment, still its not for everybody.

There are some misconceptions about lean, 6 sigma and ISO. which I will post hopefully tomorrow.

The excuse "people don't buy into it" is used all the time to explain away the failure of a particular management technique. It's used by communists to explain why communism hasn't worked yet. The truth is communism is against human nature.

6σ is the same. It's psuedoscience applied to management. When one actually looks at the results of 6σ or "lean thinking" you find giant craters of failure. GE, one of the earlier adopters of 6σ has basically destroyed itself under the guise of improved "productivity". Toyota, developer of lean thinking has had multiple quality PR nightmares the past decade.

Proponents of these management cults explain away these meltdowns as "those companies lost focus". But the truth is that scams like 6σ and lean thinking are the business equivalent of self help books, and we all know what we think about self help books.

By the way, I would be a billionaire right now if every american would just mail me $5. I explained this to my bank to try to get a loan but they didn't buy it. I told them that it isn't my fault this plan hasn't worked yet because people haven't bought into it. My creditors seem unsympathetic.

I apologize Roger, wish I would have waited till this morning so i could reread this, a comment was sharp here which context was what not what I intended.

which was this,

How did they turn it around, they gutted out the culture, you know the kind, the ones that state lean and 6σ is a failure.

The context I intended at the time I posted was, the experience we both have, a poor choice of words of which if I would have proofed read, I would of removed all together. Otherwise my post I pretty much stand behind the rest.

What you are saying is that failure analysis works, but should be applied to the accounting department & CEO as well?

long term vs short term is at the root of most of the present dysfunction in many areas

I would argue that the success or failure of a company has nothing to do whether or not it uses lean thinking, six sigma, or god help us all, lean six sigma (I kid you not).Let's look at a list of companies using six sigma:

Motorola - Successful up until last decade
GE- Received a 140 billion dollar bailout in 2008. This happened because GE's core business wasn't growing and they turned to risk to get profit.
Polaroid- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 2001
Texas Instruments- Lost prestige in 1990s. Stock flat for entire 2000s.
Honeywell (formerly Allied Signal) - Some serious EPA violations, but otherwise successful
Delta Airlines - Chapter 11 Bankruptcy 2005
PepsiCo- Just recently fell to third in the cola wars behind Coke and Diet Coke
Sears- Steady decline for decades
Ford - Doing quite well all things considered, well run
Boeing - Since 1995, the company has agreed to pay $1.6 billion to settle thirty-nine instances of misconduct, including $615 million in 2006 in relation to illegal hiring of government officials and improper use of proprietary information

There are many other examples of course, but what would be the point? I'm simply trying to show that Six Sigma companies seem to do good and bad, just like all companies. I mean, if it were such a good system, why wouldn't the companies adopting it be more successful?

The common answer to my question above seems to always be "they didn't buy into it, or they didn't implement it correctly" See, just like a cult, failures are glossed over and successes are overemphasized.

Lean Thinking

Toyota Invented Lean Thinking - From November 2009 through the first quarter of 2010, Toyota recalled more than 8 million (accounts differ) cars and trucks worldwide in several recall campaigns, and briefly halted production and sales.

My Point

Why would we expect Lean Thinking or Six Sigma to improve government when it's track record in Industry is spotty at best? These programs are simply business self help books designed to create the illusion of doing something instead of actually doing something.

Why would we expect Lean Thinking or Six Sigma to improve government when it's track record in Industry is spotty at best? These programs are simply business self help books designed to create the illusion of doing something instead of actually doing something.

what would you consider "doing something"?

Is there a way to promote long term, in a short election cycle world....

_{Roger for President}

Why would we expect Lean Thinking or Six Sigma to improve government when it's track record in Industry is spotty at best? These programs are simply business self help books designed to create the illusion of doing something instead of actually doing something.

We are actually inline with this as my first #2 would question it.

The example I gave of PCMC they have two shops in Green Bay, Wisconsin. One union and One nounion. When BW purchase that, The union members as well as the union itself bought into it. They were struggling and as far as the union itself, it was about to lose its members.

You talked about it being it " It's used by communists to explain why communism hasn't worked yet." In post #17. Thats actually why it failed no matter what government its under is greed. And the communist failed because it stopped buying into it and turned to capitalisttics traits....Greed.

The companies you listed:

Motorola - Bubble bust in earlier 2000-2002 Turned to short term profits, its momentum carried it a ways as its culture changed.

GE, Short Term profits and frankly, I don't believe they really didn't grasped Lean and 6 Sigma. For it to work required more investment that they put in it. I don't believe they really bought in on it that why it went on a buying spread to boost quarterly returns,

Polaroid- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 2001, what last innovation did they really have of late, it was actually the instant camera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_camera

You have to constantly push to grow the company and not just rely on your past, and by push I don't mean to make your next quarterly numbers.

The other are basically the same. They got bloated through the capitalist system, which I believe it's the best, with one exexption, it should be the survival of the fittest, these companies got so big, this government reverted to what…….a socialist type system, in a complex way.

Why? Because they felt we could not afford to let these companies fail, just because of their size. When in fact if they were left to fail, the pill would really have been a lot more bitter, but recovery would have been shorter just due to the breakup of a poor managed company during economic hard times.

In summary: Lean and 6 sigma is not a across the board answer, to be competitive innovations lie in all directions. It keeps companies honest. And as far as government applying this. No way, the government is too large of a corporation. With only the taxpayer to bail it out.

You Wrote:"In summary: Lean and 6 sigma is not a across the board answer, to be competitive innovations lie in all directions. It keeps companies honest."

In what way does Lean and 6 sigma keep companies honest? I demonstrated in post #26 that there are plenty of examples of companies failing using Six Sigma. If Six Sigma and Lean are managing methods to improve businesses, yet adopters of those businesses routinely fail (see post #26) or suffer humiliating setbacks (Toyota), what credibility can those programs claim to have? Don't those systems emphasize evaluating results? Don't the results show that it's hit or miss (like business usually is)?

What about the cost of implementing Six Sigma and Lean? How many Black belts are out there? How much did training them to do what is otherwise known as commonsense cost?

Conclusion

I'm sorry, but given the evidence, both through personal experience, and through researching the companies that have adopted six sigma and lean and looking at how they fared after wards, it just seems like Six Sigma and Lean is a scam.

Not Lean and 6 sigma keeps companies honest but competitive innovations.

And to explain farther, Company "A" just came out with a new product or process and is eating up market share from company "B". Its what company "B" does to offset this? Keeps them honest.

Lean and 6 sigma is only a tool, and a tool is only as good as the person who knows how to use it. Like a hammer is to a carpenter or a wrench is to a mechanic. Or Lean and 6 sigma is to GE. GE just didn't know how to use it, and to respond to your post # #26, frankly they just used the hot buzz words for the most part and never really should have took Lean and 6 sigma off the shelf, it was the wrong tool for them.

I feel like we're coming closer to an agreement now. I agree that Lean and six sigma, in the correct hands, could be useful. I think the black belts and all that is a money making scheme, but if you have a good manager who honestly is trying to find a new way of looking at things, then they could be decent guidelines. However I don't think Lean or Six Sigma solves bad management. In fact, it probably makes it worse. So, if we are saying that Government Agencies are being run badly (and I'm not agreeing that's true, at least not all government agencies), does it really make sense to impose Lean or Six Sigma on them? If they are already badly managed, won't that just make them even more bureaucratic?

What I'm more interested in is a way to quantify bureaucracies. It seems to me we are supposed to take as self evident that Government is inefficient yet Businesses (corporations) aren't. I haven't seen that myself. Here is an anecdote:

I recently changed apartments, so I had to change my address with everyone. I found the easiest place to change my address was DMV (I know, I couldn't believe it either). DMV is no joke, it's streamlined, online, and courteous. I think 25 years of stand up comedians ridiculing them finally broke them down and made them efficient. Second easiest? The post office. I can't emphasize enough how awesome it was dealing with them. The worst? My credit cards. Chase kept me on hold forever, was inconsiderate and rude and kept trying to sell me things instead of helping me. Then they got the address wrong (lets just say I think there was a language barrier). It took over a week and many calls to get it squared away. Just a horrible experience. My Citi card was a little better, but not much.

My point is that I believe that perhaps 20 years ago, and definitely 40 years ago, that government was bloated and inefficient and corporations were considerate and fast, but my experiences nowadays say the situation has reversed. Except for Geico, which is a well run, fantastic insurer I recommend to everyone (I rarely find a considerate corporation so when I do I make sure to reward them with free advertising).

Efficiency of the DMV, I agree its unbelievable, almost enjoyable...but a perfect example of what at one time poor management can do.

As far a Chase or any Chase like company, Bloated bureaucracy, Long term Goals are replaced with Short-term Profits, Bad for any quality system.

So here's where I think we'll disagree. I don't think the problem with this country is bloated, inefficient federal government. Perhaps a few state governments and certainly some local municipalities, but not the federal government for the most part.

I think what is strangling this country are bloated, inefficient, cumbersome, short sighted corporations. I believe in capitalism, but if you let monopolies form, or you let companies get too big to fail, you lose all the good parts about capitalism (competition, efficiency) and you're left with the bad parts (wealth inequality, Cut benefits of workers). If you want to bring this country back, we've got to take an ax to this super conglomerations, these super banks, these super retailers. Split them up and bring back competition. Government spending (in my opinion) is only a small part of the problem, the real problem is tax rates simply being too low and unregulated corporations running roughshod over all of us.

But I am a liberal, so my positions shouldn't be that surprising to you guys. It's not like I hide what I am. I just hope you see we liberals have some logic behind our thinking, and the logic isn't "we want to destroy this country and create a socialist state".

Your correct, we are even inline with the corporation side, my side of difference with government and corporations is that adopting and implementation of lean programs. Which would show an accountability that would present itself and point to the effectiveness or non-effectiveness/ineffectiveness of some of the same managers and corporate level exec. that are implementation this same programs.

i.e., who would conscientiously, unconsciously or a matter of incompetence, jeopardize their position with a successful implementation.

^{I have a potting bench I have to build now.}

You wrote: "Toyota Invented Lean Thinking"

This is not quite correct.

Nor is the Toyota 'recall' assertion properly scaled or attributed to cause/source.

Moving on; I wonder if you see the direct parallels here with the corporate model?

Key to "Lean" and "6sigma" is the information flow is an organization. Most inefficiency is due to blockage or impediment of information. They are basically "information flow design models"

Given most government make an art of blocking and impeding information, I'd suspect they would adopt it to improve that facet.

It can be used both ways. As most on your corporate list demonstrated - used for 'blindness' it's very good at producing 'blindness'.

But isn't that what one finds in the common sense department? It's really not about measuring or doing the standards thing it's about trying to put a value on incompetence (if there is one). Now, if that could be defined by empirical data, that would help.

Can being phlegmatic or ignorant be measured? They can at best be seen in the results but tracing the failure back to who and what caused it is a nebulous affair. Only if the whole process is changed, bottom up, and still be understood can it be implemented during full operation, capacity of our societies.

the corresponding pressure buildup will blow it apart.

I think it has already happened, we are just in denial.

Common sense is.... essential to life. it really is... "Sense" is having ideas that correspond to reality.

However, a System isn't a system without feedback (measurement) and control (comparison and adjustment)

The reason that systems require more than common sense is all about quality. Quality is really about consistency.... and there is no consistency to be found amongst humans.

In order to create a system, political or otherwise, that is consistent, you have to 'control' the key factors, so that they are not available to 'sensible' adjustment.

and lastly, there is nothing that makes more sense in a political system, than giving all the power to one person. that is common sense. just ask Adolf. the only problem is that it isn't good for everyone.

my 2 cents.

Chris

You mean like it fixed GE? The same GE that was just bailed out by the government? (GE was one of the earliest and most voracious adopters of Six Sigma).

I think a better question is, can we quantify bureaucracy? I hear a lot of claims that government is wasteful, but I've worked for many corporations and seen waste there to. So it begs the question, is government really all that wasteful compared to corporations?

Six Sigma is just a pseudo-scientific way to waste money and screw people over.

I hear a lot of claims that government is wasteful, but I've worked for many corporations and seen waste there to. So it begs the question, is government really all that wasteful compared to corporations?

Sounds like a politician or a CEO, when your compare it as a relevancy.

So a company is mismanaged, and should be bailed out, makes it an open and rich target for people to mismanage companies, and the reason "Because everyone else does it."

That is a poor argument at best.

As far as 6σ, people swear by it for its organizational outcomes.

Since it's invention American Manufacturing has been in steady decline, right?

What exactly is the measure that says 6σ has been a success? Or should I just take your word for it?

I think a better question is, can we quantify bureaucracy? I hear a lot of claims that government is wasteful, but I've worked for many corporations and seen waste there to. From #8

Or should I just take your word for it? from above

Keep in mind Roger, This is a forum with different opinions other than yours.

6 sigma is not for everyone, The organization has buy in on it.

or lean for that matter. Because lean does not mean fewer people.

I am traveling, I will respond with the data and stats for you as soon as possible.

I can fix the government, and make it efficient, but it will cost you a coupla billion to pay my salary!

Indiana State government went through Lean after going through Pay-for-Performance. The area I was in at the time was air quality permits branch. Lean was used to evaluate the permit writing process in order to reduce the backlogged permits. What they found was that the branch managers were putting their noses in to many things and hindering the employees. Also, the managers were returning the permits way to many times because they weren't reviewing the entire permit each time. They looked at different parts each time it was turned in. They were also looking at parts of the permit that were not related to the current project. Three years later, that branch is still really uptight about everything and untrusting of their employees, but their are less managers that review the permits prior to them going out the door. The managers only evaluate the permit writers on the parts of the permit that relates to the project. The result is all but 1 backlogged permit is issued and the 1 is held up in a court battle. The air permits branch went from 70 employees to 34 overworked employees. Of course the economy crashing and reduced permit applications has helped allow less permit writers.

Lean can do great things for government once the right culture is in place. For us the culture is Pay-For-Performance (modified). We no longer have the mandatory 10% gets above expectations, 10% gets below expectations and the remainsing 80% get meets expectations.

I would argue that what you described isn't "lean thinking" but "common sense". Essentially you said that permits were backed up because managers were working inefficiently. I don't think lean principles were necessary to realize that finding as many errors the first time around and minimizing the number of times permits went back and forth instead of sending permits back over and over again was a good idea.

The problem with things like six sigma and lean thinking is it creates the illusion of empiricism. As though corporations weren't dehumanized and good at displacing guilt enough (I'm not laying you off, the company is laying you off), now they can pretend it is a empirically determined consequence (You're getting laid off cause we're getting leaner).

Old companies with no vision embrace lean thinking and six sigma because it tells them that the key to success is just getting more efficient. Is that really true? Or is that just a way of creating an illusion of success for your stockholders for a little while?

Lean thinking and six sigma creates more managers in my experience, in order to implement what is essentially common sense. Adding more managers doesn't make a company efficient, it just makes it feel like it's more efficient.

In the dictatorship called public service (It is very close to the type of management used in the army: no voice. Just do what you're told.), it requires these types of events to force people to get out of the business as usual thinking and make real changes in the way things are done. The permits branch is still evaluating how they do their work and the managers in place now, are actually willing to listen to the permit writers on ideas how to do things better. They just implemented an electronic review program that tracks the comments of the managers. Before, it was all on paper and some managers were making the papers disappear to make themselves look better.

There were other things fixed. The branch manager was forced out the door for many reasons after Lean along with her hard nosed employee evaluation process which was very negative and demeaning. The managers in the branch couldn't ignore the permit writers and now have monthly meetings to discuss issues within the branch (mostly the different sections have to do things the same way in order to remain consistent). It helped in so many ways that the moral went from "mass exodus" to "I like it here."

We lost managers and an entire office (Office of Enforcement). The work done by the office is now integrated into my job (was compliance manager and now is compliance and enforcement manager). The office was found to be inefficient because it separated the enforcement managers from the inspectors and reduced communication between the two. I can see that point, but the implementation was poor in my opinion. Inspectors are good at telling a source "you are subject and must comply". Enforcement managers were trained to talk and negotiate in order to reach the desired outcome (the source in compliance and not wanting to go through enforcement again). Making inspectors, enforcement managers at the same time, has created this huge learning curve, put inspections behind schedule and we have a person that is strictly dedicated to helping us with the enforcement questions that we have. I think it has made the enforcement process very inefficient and incentivized the inspectors not to write up sources for violations. We will see when they reevaluate this approach at the 2 year mark. The other offices (land and water quality) just created enforcement sections and kept the two functions separate. They did not create any new manager positions and kept the same number of sections by reducing the number of inspector sections.

Personally, I think Lean is just that: common sense. I noticed the lack of it during my 2 yrs of using Lean in pollution prevention opportunity assessments. Every company I had talked to said "well that makes sense" and it was just simple things. The best phrase is "you can't know what you don't measure." Many companies didn't even know what they were paying for utilities (water, sewer and electricity). Just getting them to measure the amounts and costs was like pulling teeth. Point is, it is not just a public sector issue. It is also a private sector issue.

BTW, I was trained in Lean Manufacturing by Toyota using Plan, Do, Check, Act in a continual cycle. I have also gone through classes at Subaru where they have and use the same culture and way of thinking. All of the employees are trained in it and their suggestions (once put into the PDCA format) are reviewed by a committee. They are also rewarded if the idea is implemented. Subaru has been able to go zero landfill with less than 2% going for waste to power.

So is it the lean thinking that produced Subaru's results? Or is Subaru just well managed?

Roger we are so much inline here.

from my post #29 second from the last paragraph address this as well as my previous post. It can be a with a combination of both, because good management needs tools. They just have to grab the right tool.

As a speech from David Goetsch, He wrote a book "Quality Management - Introduction to Total Quality Management for Production, Processing and Services". an excerpt about ISO:

'Forget quality- Give me better sales reps." This applies to Toyota.

I had just recently taken a class in Quality Management, and we covered such tools as Quality Circles, TQM, ISO, Lean, 6δ, KANBAM.... Some of these tools are not compatible with others, How when to apply them, and most important, when not to.

But for any quality tool implemented, You have to agree it has to be accepted across the board in the organization. That may mean even changing the culture of the organization, And that is another topic.

Roger, I don't believe your against quality programs, just that government using them. There are other tools, but like Subaru or any other company. You have to apply the tool that works for the organization.

You Wrote:"Roger, I don't believe your against quality programs, just that government using them."

That's almost right. I'm even ok with the government using them lean thinking. I just don't want it imposed on the government. I think that will solve nothing and actually create more problems by creating more bureaucracy.

It's funny, one of the best managers I've ever worked for is full in on lean thinking. I respect him so I do what I can, but at the end of the day, I think it is his management style, a style that is constantly open to advice but not a push over, that makes people like working for him and makes whatever he's in charge of run smoothly, not the lean thinking.

I just don't want it imposed on the government.

You hit the nail on the head. Implementing any program, the delivery of implementation of the program is crucial. Between a well thought out diplomatic implementation as opposed to when its shoved down an employees throat so that the company/government bureaucracy can use the buzz words to give the impression of lean or what ever the latest fad is.

Saying you have it, and actually having it are two different philosophy's.

another topic thats inline with this. #6

I don't follow any of those blog entries

it belongs on commercial space, every entry is ad

don't know what your talking about, its cr4 where it should be pointing to.

GEA's HVAC Business Effectiveness Blog

it looks like they bought themselves a blogI choose not to add to the view count or otherwise support this particular attempt to blur the line between blog & commercial space

Sorry to hear that, I hit #6, and this is where it took me.

Just a hunch here.

How does CR4 make its money? Global Spec.

How does Global Spec make its money? Companies like GEA maybe

I gladly subscribe to many of the newsletters & provide content for many of the questions that appear in the bottom right of every issue

I don't agree with this particular method of advertising, so I choose not to participate...

I don't heckle every entry

we are content, part of the infotainment

It still doen't explian where the adverts your getting are coming from

GEA

I mean where GEA is poping up in stead of the post.

every OP

any other thread that started out with an ad would be moderated

the ad is also promoted on the daily digest

just another inconsistency in the guidelines

much like there are no anonymous cowards except bloggers

I see, yes it was GEA blog site, I was focused on the posts that it generated.

I too agree with what you are saying. ga.

I added to the GA vote. I forgot about Toyota's recent episodes due to their vision of becoming the largest auto maker in the US. They didn't start out that way and you wouldn't be able to tell that they lost the Lean way of thinking when you walk around their plant. Although, the black boxes proved that many of the sudden accelerations were operator error.

Edit: I wonder if Toyota's problems has something to do with their cars being the #1 most american made cars. Although, Honda had the #2 and we don't hear about the mass recalls from them.

I'm not sure Toyota has anything going on beyond a perception problem

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/09/alliance-of-american-automobile-manufacturers-in-peril-over-toyo/

is this toyota saying "You can't handle the truth" to the big 3?

Toyota in my experience is proactive when it comes to recalls

my 05 got recalled a few months ago

the engine management computer was replaced, potentially bad solder joints, there were no symptoms...