Transcript Get Document

The Top Reasons
Six Sigma Projects Fail
Lou Johnson
Technical Training Specialist
Minitab Inc.
ASQ 2008 World Conference
May 2008
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Overview
Demographics & Data Collection
Pareto of Common Failure Modes
Top Eight Failure Modes – Detail
What Did Not Make the List
Question and Answer
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Demographics: Six Sigma Practitioners
N = 180
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Green Belt
24%
Black Belt
51%
Master Black Belt
17%
Champion
8%
Demographics: Companies
N = 114
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Large Mfg.
35%
Large Svc.
18%
Small Mfg.
32%
Small Svc.
15%
Pareto Chart
Pareto Chart of Failure Modes
1800
70
60
1200
50
900
40
660
600
300
0
277
t
or
30
20
231
154
153
150
131
129
126
78
74
72
65
64
r
e
n
n
n
a
rt
at
or
er
rg
oo
m
ig
tio
tio
p
m
po
ve
th
a
r
p
i
g
a
r
c
p
l
p
a
i
b
g
s
O
u
d
le
o
fo
oc
m
as
su
IC
6
ot
se
ba
to
al
tS
ll y
le
C
w
d
A
n
I
t
d
a
n
p
n
g
e
ci
A
M
a
ce
is
pe
a
ec
an
m
D
m
M
ur
an
at
co
n in
ct
oj
st
ti
ss
r
i
r
e
s
o
r
n
d
D
e
i
o
o
a
e
s
e
f
n
d
ag
o
ct
in
oj
rp
lf
re
to
Tr
ot
N
pr
je
al
un
an
on
in
ad
e
oo
l
n
i
o
e
t
t
t
e
M
r
P
n
sm
lit
n'
Pr
ed
th
o lu
al
o
rc
o
tio
e
es
n
c
S
o
o
o
t
o
t
e
le
T
d
t
ti o
tf
pl
se
ec
za
nt
ec
i
j
j
m
t
e
n
o
o
a
co
ec
Pr
Pr
em
rg
oj
to
r
O
ag
P
e
n
a
im
M
T
Rating
277 231 154 153 150 131 129 126
78
74
72
65
64
660
P ercent
12
10
7
6
6
6
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
28
C um %
12
21
28
34
41
46
52
57
60
64
67
69
72
100
d
se
d
te
n
e
Percent
Rating
1500
10
0
ta
da
29 Modes
42 Total Failure Modes
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Top 8 Reasons for Failure
Top Eight Failure Modes by Rating
Management Support
277
Project selection not financially based
231
Solution is not implemented
154
No data - bad data
153
Project scope too large
150
Project forced into DMAIC format
131
Project too small for DMAIC rigor
129
Training was poor
126
0
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
50
100
150
200
Rating
250
300
350
8:Training was Poor
“We did all our training on a TI83 calculator.”
Only Blackbelts are trained - (small company)
•
•
•
Management doesn’t have the knowledge to support projects
Process owners don’t feel confident of the outcome
Project leaders feel overwhelmed
No Project
•
“Only 40% of our students complete a project in the 1st year.”
•
•
“We tell our clients to bring a project to training. They never do.”
“Trainees never get to practice what they learned.”
No coaching or mentoring from MBB’s or Trainers
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
The Successful Failure
Project Goal: Reduce wrapping defects to less than .5%
The Defect Slayers’
Story Board
Percent Wrapping Defects over Time
Percent Wrapping Defects
8
Charter
Wrap Tension
Part Speed
Over Production
Implementation
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
2
6
5
19
24
12
30
17
23
10
28
il
ly
ch
y
st
st
pr
ril
ch
ay
ay
ne
Ju
ul
u
u
ar
r
A
p
u
J
M
M
g
g
a
A
J
M
M
Au
Au
Setting
Knowledge
Operator Setting
7
Gear Shifing
Defect Slayers Rock!
Job Change
Wrapping Machine
Defects
Lose Lock Down
Pallet Wear
Supplier
Wrong Pallet
Pallet Movement
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Bad Plastic
Damage
Financial Results: saved $30,156 in 2006!
7: Poor use of resources for DMAIC rigor
“My understanding of Six Sigma tells me that 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”
Praveen Gupta, Quality Digest commentary, 2007
After Completing the Project the Team Members Should Feel it
was Worth the Effort..
Take Home Message: It takes about the same effort to
complete a $300,000 project as a $30,000 project, maybe less.
Selection
Execution
$30K
Selection
Execution
$300K
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Safety Improvement Team
Project Goal: Improve OSHA recordable incidents to < 3 / period.
Scope / Definition of Project
Weight
*
Evaluation Criteria
Risk Score
1
The project has a clearly identified customer
Yes
1
1
The project has a clearly definable defect
Yes
1
1
The defect can be effectively and accurately measured
Yes
1
1
The defect metric can be defined at the opportunity level
Yes
1
1
Costs can readily be associated with the defect
Yes
1
1
Defects are of an ongoing nature and at a measurable level
No
10
1
The process to be improved has reasonably high output volume
Yes
1
1
The project can be completed in a timely manner
No
10
1
The project has only one defect (one DPMO)
Yes
1
1
The project will involve only one product
Yes
1
1
Project improvements will not depend on modifying operations outside of organization
Yes
1
1
The project is limited to only one geographic location
Yes
1
1
The project will have visible management support
Yes
1
1
The input variables can be readily modified producing changes in output
No
10
Scope/Definition - Project Score
* Project Risk Assessment tool available in
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Answer
Quality Companion by Minitab
41
6: Project forced into DMAIC format
Inappropriate Projects for DMAIC Methodology
•
•
•
Select a vendor for our SPC software
Reduce auto part failures one year into life of the car
Install a new finishing line for our desktop product
–
Perhaps DFSS for this project
“ Having BBs and GBs pick their own projects is not a
good strategy in our experience”
Snee & Hoerl , Six Sigma Beyond the Factory Floor, 2005
Six Sigma practice projects
•
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
“You must do a Gage R&R”
5: Project Scope Too Large
Improve the profitability
of the South American
Division
Improve sales
by 20%
Improve sales
margin by 20%
Improve internet
sales by 25%
Limit Project Scope
Reduce complaints about
internet order to fill time
(include lost orders due
to inability to ship as
desired by the customer)
Decrease internet
order to fill time by
45%
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
• One geographical location
• Within organizational influence
• One measurable product / defect
• Clearly defined customer
• SIPOC
Let’s take a break!
“While only 32% of respondents in organizations with new (< 1 year )
Six Sigma programs frequently or always use a formal prioritization
process, 63% of those in organizations with 5 – 10 years experience
with Six Sigma do.”
Jonathan Atwood, iSixSigma Research – Project Selection, 2005
Take Home Message: Selecting the right Six Sigma projects is
key to their success. Utilize a formal project selection process
from the beginning of your Six Sigma implementation.
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
4: No Data / Bad Data
No Data
•
•
•
Service Quality projects can be difficult
Defect occurs in the customer’s process
Limited access to operations data
–
Confidentiality & privacy issues
Bad Data – Check it!
•
•
•
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Do the Gage R&R first – 156% of Tolerance!?
Attribute data has a tremendous potential for variation
Gage calibration and drift.
3: Solution not implemented
Process owner was not involved in the project
•
•
•
Six Sigma Department
Process owner was never interested in the project
Project hand-off
The DMA.. Methodology
“This is not what we expected!”
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
2: Project is not linked to finances
Project Goal: Reduce the number of press shutdowns caused
by mold in equipment from 37 to < 14 per month.
Solution
•
•
•
•
Preventative planning meetings
Mold designer checks prescription
Thicker chrome plating
Reduce press speed
$$
$
$$$
$$$
+ Work!
Is this solution worth implementing?
•
•
•
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
One shutdown = $8k
Potential Project Savings = 12 x 23 x $8k = $2.2kk/yr
Yes!
2: Project is not linked to finances
Data: A major manufacturer of building materials monitored
project characteristics and project success.
Financial Link?
Yes
No
Yes
80
35
No
26
41
Successful?
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Failure Rate for linked projects
26 / 106 = 25%
Failure Rate for non-linked projects
41 / 76 = 54%
1: Management support
“You shouldn’t ask your employees to do something you’re not willing
to do yourself. The engagement of senior management is critical to
any significant organizational change”
Alan Kent, CEO of Meadows Regional Medical Center
Commenting on factors that lead to his company’s successful
Lean Six Sigma project, 2007
“After our CEO left the company, our Six Sigma program just faded
away.”
Small Service Quality company employee
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
1: Management Support
Good Management Support - Total = 598
Committed Management Support
277
Appropriate Project Resourses Available
74
Enough Time to Complete the Project
72
Management Understands Six Sigma
64
Knowlegable Project Leader
61
Project Scope Changes Only When Necessary
Consider:
• Gantt Charts
• Y Metrics
50
0
50
100
150
200
Rating
250
300
• Cause & Effect Diagrams
• Balloting
• Presentation Mode
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Causes that didn’t show up on the list
Project was too complex to solve
No Rewards / Recognition program
“We didn’t understand the statistics behind Six
Sigma”
Politics
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Conclusion
Application of DMAIC
Best Practices for Implementation
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.
Thank you for your time and participation!
Questions?
The Top Reasons Six Sigma Projects Fail
Lou Johnson
Technical Training Specialist
Minitab Inc.
ASQ 2008 World Conference
May 2008
© 2008 Minitab, Inc.