|
Strong Project Sponsorship
and Chartering are Key to Successful Six Sigma Projects |
By
Steven H. Jones
Having
conducted internal corporate Lean and Six Sigma projects as well as
external client initiatives, I have concluded that strong project
sponsorship and project chartering are key components for a
successful Six Sigma project. Regardless of how good the Green or
Black Belt’s skills are, if these components are not in place the
project’s cycle time, goal attainment and acceptance will be
limited.
Unfortunately
many organizations have been sold on Six Sigma as a quick fix to
internal organizational issues. The real benefit that Six Sigma
brings to an organization will only be seen over time. Therefore,
if corporate commitment to Six Sigma is not in place it may pass
away as the latest fad of business improvement strategies. In order
to prevent Six Sigma’s demise it is essential for the methodology to
be properly implemented, practiced and supported. The quality of
the methodology will only be maintained with positive project
results. Here are two key components to ensure the quality of the
methodology and deliver positive project results.
Strong
Project Sponsorship
The first and
most important stone to be laid for a successful Lean or Six Sigma
project is strong project sponsorship.
Sponsorship of
any change initiative must come from leadership positioned high
enough in the organization to approve changes determined necessary
by the data to meet the project’s objective.
Example #1:
I once conducted a project focused on reducing the cycle time to
renew client contracts. The project was sponsored by a Director of
Operations who owned divisional responsibility for account
retention. This sounds good, but one key finding the project team
identified was the necessity for sales to change their process and
behavior. Unfortunately the sponsoring director had no authority
over sales who contributed to 30% of the cycle time. Needless to
say this project stalled at the improve phase when our sponsor was
unable to get the support from sales.
The end result
was that instead of saving the company $250,000 per year in unbilled
revenue we cost the company $18,000 in project team resources. This
is a classic case of sponsorship at a level too low to execute
necessary change.
Project
sponsors also need to have an honest interest in the problem being
solved. In many organization projects are commissioned at a senior
management level and parsed out to mid level managers to sponsor.
In theory this sounds good, however this does not ensure project
acceptance. The problem results from sponsors not having ownership
of the problem or confidence in a methodology they are ignorant of.
Without strong sponsor support, the project’s progress will
suffer. With properly positioned and committed sponsorship
challenging projects can deliver significant benefits.
Example #2:
While leading a Lean Six Sigma project for an external client with
Senior Leadership sponsorship I encountered a roadblock between two
associate VP’s. Each Associate VP organization held resources
capable of delivering the service required for this account. The
labor costs for the team who initially delivered the service was 25
times higher than the customer was willing to pay. Additionally
travel was required for them to meet with the client. Conversely,
the local team possessed the capability to deliver the work at half
the cost and be onsite with the client without travel expense.
Having senior level sponsorship allowed the data to drive the
decision on placement of the work. Strong sponsorship produced a
90% reduction in the cost and cycle time to produce each unit. This
resulted in a $600,000.00 annual savings to the client and
$80,000.00 in annual revenue to my organization.
Clearly
Written and Defined Charter
There is an old
saying in my family that you’ll never get any where if you don’t
know where you’re going. This remains true in process improvements
efforts as well. All too often the sponsor of a project comprehends
the pain that needs to relieved, but has not received the requisite
training to properly author a clear and well written project
charter.
There must be a
clearly definitions of the following charter components:
Project failure is inevitable if the
breadth of the project is too big.
It
is imperative to establish clear starts and stops to minimize
misinterpretation or confusion in the mind of the stakeholders. If
this step is not properly performed the scope of a project can
simply be too broad. We call
this “Boiling the Ocean”.
A project’s scope
should be firmly established BEFORE the project is ever launched.
This will help avoid potential problems arising from ‘out of scope’
additions to the project. It also helps manage stakeholder
expectations by clearly communicating what will and won't be
delivered. Many projects are completed meeting or exceeding all
goals and still be perceived as a failure by stakeholders. This
will occur if the scope of the project has been misunderstood.
Hence the stakeholders and/or sponsors benefit expectations were
either unattainable or never targeted in the project.
The project scope should only cover
two to three Key Process Input or Output Variables.
No one project can reasonable
develop a process change with more than four Key Process Output
Variables. When the scope encompasses more than three KPOV’s the
project needs to be either divided into multiple concurrent projects
or into sequential or multi-generational projects.
Here is one of the most challenging
and underappreciated areas in building the framework for a
successful project. Many projects either have too many, too few or
the wrong mix of representation on the team.
It is essential to have a good mix
of skill sets, roles and personality types on the project.
Personality evaluation tools are excellent aids to gauge the
cohesiveness and synergy of a team. By using one of these tools,
the prospective team members from the projects’ stake-holding teams
can be evaluated in advance. The results can then be used to build
the team with the best potential synergy. This will improve the
success of the team and the project.
The rank or position of the team
members also plays a key part. I once led a project with six team
members all at the Director and Associate VP level. While this
sounded like a great mix of players to produce change, the team had
little availability to participate in meetings let alone perform the
project tasks. Due to the amount of responsibility held by the team
our cycle time and meeting attendance were both severely hampered.
“Timing is everything.” This age
old statement stands true in the Six Sigma world today. When
building a project team little things like vacation, holiday
schedules and peak work cycles must be taken into consideration.
Launching a project for the accounting department at then end of the
fiscal year will have some obvious challenges. This may sound
elementary, but when projects are identified by leadership without
local departmental visibility, these basic considerations are often
missed. Small issues can become great bottlenecks to minimizing the
projects cycle time.
By carefully
and thoroughly executing these steps within the Lean and Six Sigma
methodology substantial improvement in the project’s cycle time,
goal attainment and acceptance can be achieved.
About the author
Steven H. Jones is a Process Engineer who
received his certification as a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt by the
George Group while employed and Xerox Global Services. He started
his career at the 3M Corporation, an early adopter of the Lean Six
Sigma methodology in 1988 and has worked in quality improvement of
Telecommunications and IT arenas since 1993. Since then he has
provided quality improvement and process engineering services
domestically and internationally to clients such as BP Canada,
Convergys, Intercontinental Hotels, and Microsoft. He is currently
a Senior Process Engineer with Siemens Business Services and can be
reached at steven.jones@sbs.siemens.com.
Tell us what you think about this article. Send a note to the Editor.
www.manorhouseassociates.com
|