I recently read an article by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s the kind of experience that gives conflicting feelings, on one hand, I am humbled to realize how intelligent the man is, on the other hand, I am grateful that I at least have enough intelligence to appreciate his writing.
The article I’m referring to was titled; Open Secrets; Enron, intelligence, and the perils of too much information. In it, he discusses the differences between puzzles and mysteries. To summarize, a puzzle can’t be solved unless there is enough information. Gladwell states “Mysteries require judgment and the assessment of uncertainty, and the hard part is not that we have too little information, but that we have too much.” So one needs further information, the other has too much information.
Well this started me to thinking, in terms of Six Sigma, which is it, a puzzle or a mystery? In reality, depending on at what point the process is currently at, it’s both. The Six Sigma process should begin with the mystery. There is an issue, a problem, a situation that needs to be improved. The problem being, at the onset, we have no idea of how to accomplish this. The define phase of the DMAIC roadmap then is to establish what the mystery is and what benefits can be obtained by solving it. The question you must ask yourself is, do I have a mystery or do I have a puzzle.
If a lack of certain information is all that is needed, then your problem is a puzzle, Six Sigma methodology may not be the best method to pursue solving the puzzle. It may be more time consuming and expensive than is necessary and other, simpler problem solving tools might fit the situation better. If, on the other hand, there is too much information; the possibilities regarding the solution are many and there is no clear idea on where the issue originates, then a mystery exists and Six Sigma methods may be the right tool.
My experience with a number of different Six Sigma initiatives has found that one of the reasons for failing to achieve the benefits from the effort that was expected was a lack of selecting projects that fit the Six Sigma criteria. Nothing kills the legitimacy and mars the perception of Six Sigma then investing heavily in money and resources to pursue something that could have been handled with less cost, time and people, especially if the effort is chasing items with little return on investment.
While there were many reasons for this, one of these is that problems that were in reality puzzles were being approached as if they were mysteries. When an organization invests in extensive training, time, and resources only to use the developed talent on simple, everyday issues, it’s no wonder some may feel cheated, the results nothing close to what was expected. The outcome then become less than satisfying, observed by others as an elaborate process to fix something that could have been accomplished simply by gathering available information and fitting the pieces together. Six Sigma becomes perceived as much too complicated, costly and elaborate for the situation and altogether unnecessary.
Let me make an analogy. Think of the game of Clue, the object is to determine who committed the offense and with what weapon. In the beginning, there are many suspects and many choices for what was used, it’s a mystery, there’s too much information. During the course of the game, suspects and weapons are eliminated until someone wins by determining who did it and with what by eliminating unnecessary information and putting the pieces together . Six Sigma is similar in its approach. There are many possible reasons for the issue; man, material, methods, measurement and Mother Nature must be considered. The DMAIC roadmap is designed to filter through these until a jigsaw puzzle is left and during the improve phase, these are simply fitted together.
To put it another way, the foundational formula regarding Six Sigma, Y=f(x1, x2, x3, xi…), the outputs are a function of the inputs. There are all these possibilities and the mystery is determining which ones. The problem in applying Six Sigma to puzzles is we start with a formula that is closer to; Y=f(Xa, Xb and Xc), we have enough information, what’s left if to fit these together, and the puzzle is complete.
A successful Six Sigma initiative requires a number of things be clearly established in order to achieve the benefits that are desired. Each of these is important and without any one of them, the results will suffer. I like to think of it as a wheel, supported by spokes. Take away any of the spokes and the wheel will eventually fail.
Choosing the Right Projects is one of the spokes that supports the wheel, and every bit as important as the others. While there are many failure modes that can occur in the project selection process, confusing a puzzle with a mystery is certainly one of them.
Whether your Six Sigma initiative is new, mature, or discarded at some point, ask yourself during the Define phase, do I have a mystery? Is there too much information available and some method to sort and understand it is needed? If not, then another approach might be in order. If so, it satisfies one of the elements of project selection, remember that others must be considered as well, and if they too meet the criteria, go solve the mystery.
Lean Enterprise Software Solutions has a number of talented individuals who have the experience to assist companies solve difficult problems in many areas in order for you to compete in this world marketplace and contribute to your company’s profitability.
Visit our website and discover the many services, training, facilitating, and coaching options that are available: www.leanculturenow.com
Be the first to rate this post
- Currently 0/5 Stars.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5