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

Green Belt Black Belt

24% 51%

Master Black Belt Champion

17% 8%

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 Demographics: Companies

N = 114

Large Mfg. Large Svc.

35% 18%

Small Mfg. Small Svc.

32% 15%

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 Pareto Chart
Pareto Chart of Failure Modes
1800
70
1500 60
1200 50
Rating

Percent
900 40
660 30
600
20
277
300 231
154 153 150 131 129 126 10
78 74 72 65 64
0 0
t d d ta e at or r rt n n n a er
or se te rg oo po tio ve tio
pp
ba e n da la rm rig p p a i c i gm th
u m d o fo IC as su oc ot
g le s O
tS a ll y le - ba to IC A w d al n t se d
6
e n ci p e A M g a n e is c n
an m a op in rc je ta
em ti at M rD ss ou ct
a g if n n o
o
d
ct
sc
to
D
lf
o
Tr
a in
in
e
re
s
o j e
r p ro
d ers 29 Modes
an n ot ion N je in al ad le pr oo un
M t o e t e t
n o lu Pr ed sm al
r lit th
P n'
c tio S o rc
to o n o o te oes
le tf t ti o T pl
e d
t se j ec j ec i za m e nt
o n o
ec Pr
o
Pr a c em
roj O
rg to ag
P e n
im a
T M
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

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 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Rating

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 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 1 st 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’ Percent Wrapping Defects over Time
8

Story Board 7 Implementation

Percent Wrapping Defects

Charter 6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Wrap Tension Part Speed
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2 00 00 00 00 00 20
0 00 20
0 00 00 00
2, ,2 6,
2
4,
2 ,2 , ,2 , ,2 ,2 8,
2
19 r il 2 12 3 0 17 ly
5 23 10 t2
Setting
ch ch ril ay ay ne Ju ly st
Knowledge
ar ar Ap A p M M Ju Ju gu gus
M u Au
Over Production
Operator Setting Gear Shifing M A
Job Change
Defect Slayers Rock!
Wrapping Machine
Defects

Lose Lock Down

Pallet Wear Damage

Supplier

Financial Results: saved $30,156 in 2006!

Wrong Pallet

Pallet Movement Bad Plastic

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 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 Answer 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 41

* Project Risk Assessment tool available in Quality Companion by Minitab

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 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

• “You must do a Gage R&R”

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 5: Project Scope Too Large
Improve the profitability
of the South American
Division

Improve sales Improve sales

by 20% margin by 20%

Improve internet
sales by 25%
Limit Project Scope
Reduce complaints about • One geographical location
internet order to fill time
(include lost orders due • Within organizational influence
to inability to ship as
desired by the customer) • One measurable product / defect
• Clearly defined customer
Decrease internet
order to fill time by • SIPOC
45%

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 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!

• Do the Gage R&R first – 156% of Tolerance!?
• Attribute data has a tremendous potential for variation
• Gage calibration and drift.

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 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 $$
• Mold designer checks prescription $
• Thicker chrome plating $$$
+ Work!
• Reduce press speed $$$

Is this solution worth implementing?

• One shutdown = $8k
• Potential Project Savings = 12 x 23 x $8k = $2.2kk/yr
• Yes!

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 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
Successful?
No 26 41

Failure Rate for linked projects 26 / 106 = 25%

Failure Rate for non-linked projects 41 / 76 = 54%

© 2008 Minitab, Inc.

 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

Consider:
Knowlegable Project Leader 61
• Gantt Charts
Project Scope Changes Only When Necessary 50 • Y Metrics
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Rating • 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.