The frequency and the intensity of discussion on sustaining improvements, whether deployed in a manufacturing environment or a transactional application, are substantial and the debates are heated. Both the number of postings on professional sites, and live discussions in professional forums seem to be limitless on this topic. Rightfully so, as much of the contemporary literature suggests that 70-90% of upgrades made under the continuous improvement banner, cannot be sustained for even a single year. These dismal figures appear to be independent of the intent of the improvement, including the pursuit of lean objectives, cost reduction, quality enhancement, productivity increases or other worthy objectives. In addition, the utilization of the most recognized, and in theory most capable, methodologies and toolsets does not seem to improve the sustainability odds. Exploitation of one problem solving system over another, such as Six Sigma, DMAIC, Shainin Red-X or Green-Y or Pink-X or any other X, does not have an appreciable impact on the sustainability index, as the fundamental roadblocks to long term success are common across tactics.
Most discussions, particularly those led by the problem solving and improvement practitioners themselves, will point to the same root causes of sustainability failure. Most often mentioned are a lack of upper management support, and the collective organization’s poor recognition of the power of the tools, processes and outcomes… in other words ignorance. But an in-depth analysis of actual sustainability challenges might highlight contradictory evidence. Only when the true root causes of long term failure are effectively identified and addressed, will the probability of maintaining your organization’s continuous improvement solutions increase.
My perspective, gained from the direct support of, as well as independent consulting for, a number of large and small corporations primarily in the automotive industry, provides a bit of a different story. In 2014 I had the opportunity to present my thoughts on poor sustainability at the IMPACT Manufacturing Summit in Denver. Although the topic I presented dealt specifically with sustainability, the live discussions in many of the other presentations I attended, on a myriad of topics, routinely converged on this subject as well. It seemed that most all manufacturing representatives, attending from countless industries, viewed sustaining their improvements as one of their top priorities and most difficult challenges. This theme was discussed over and over again, but the discussions typically centered on the result, lack of sustainability, rather than correctly identifying the obstacles preventing success. The aforementioned root causes with management and misunderstanding once again took center stage in these discussions. These potential root causes are ambiguous and difficult to resolve, and frankly may not be the smoking gun to sustainability failure, requiring us to dig a bit deeper.
Although every organization may have unique issues driving their sustainability failure, in my experience a few common and fundamental deficiencies are the primary contributors to the lack of long term success. The three I have found to be most prevalent include:
- Definition – Inadequately defined or unobtainable objectives
- Resolution – Unacceptable solution
- Incorporation – Insufficient integration
Due to the one hour time limitation, my presentation in 2014 focused primarily on number 2 above, the specific solutions themselves. Clearly without a proper solution the chances of long term success will be doubtful. Perhaps not surprisingly, the other two issues are just as critical to success. Somewhat of a three-legged stool of contributors that may predict, and somewhat guarantee, sustainability failure before an improvement project ever commences.
I will utilize three genuine examples to illustrate deficiencies 1-3 mentioned above, as well as to feature key points, and demonstrate needed improvements. The examples are as follows:
- A production assembly value stream rearrangement to implement lean principles
- A problem solving initiative to resolve a chronic customer quality issue
- A productivity/capacity improvement project on a manufacturing plating process
These examples originated in three different companies producing very dissimilar products. In each case the products were costly and the manufacturing processes complex. In addition, these organizations were in very different states of continuous improvement maturity. All three scenarios leveraged a multi-disciplinary continuous improvement team. Each was led by a presumed subject matter expert in the specific methodology associated with the project objectives. Each team utilized the respective contemporary techniques and tools linked to the methodology selected.
Project-A: This was a Lean Workshop on a final assembly value stream with more than eight manufacturing assembly and test processes in very high volume production. This was the fourth lean workshop rearrangement on this line, all of which had occurred within six months.
Project-B: This project was a Six Sigma Problem Solving Initiative to address a chronic customer complaint. The issue pertained to a very expensive and complex assembly that if unaddressed would result in complete loss of the business to the primary customer.
Project-C: This activity was a Lean Six Sigma Project to improve productivity and increase capacity on a high volume 24-hour plating line.
Each of these projects/initiatives suffered from the first common root cause of failure, related to objectives. Project-A, the value stream rearrangement, required that the new layout identified in the lean workshop, be completely implemented and ready for production in 24 hours. This was a constraint provided by senior management and was non-negotiable. Again, this was a highly automated, complex value stream with many manufacturing processes that was to be made “lean” in 24 hours. In addition to this somewhat insurmountable constraint, the specific objectives were unclear throughout the workshop. Ironically this same production line had been through three previous “lean attempts” that were considered somewhat unsuccessful. So for this fourth attempt, the same vague lean objectives were provided, the same workshop approach was to be used, the same workshop leader was to lead it, and the same constraints were placed on the solution. In addition, after repeated inquiries throughout the workshop as to exactly what was unacceptable regarding the output of the three previous workshops, no specifics were provided. Needless to say, this fourth workshop resulted in very limited success and subsequent rearrangements of this line began to appear more and more similar to the layout utilized prior to the first lean workshop.
At first glance, Project-B appeared to have a solid objective provided for the problem solving team. It was clear that the customer issue, identified as a product that leaked oil, was to be resolved. The team was led by a Six Sigma Master Black Belt and the true root cause of the leak was indeed identified through the use of sophisticated problem solving and data analysis tools. The team membership included a number of talented engineers, operations gurus and more. Management was excited when the root cause was identified and the leak could be “turned off and on” to demonstrate the validity of the team’s root cause hypothesis. Unfortunately in communicating the problem solving objective it was never stated how robust the solution was expected to be, or that it must be preventive and drive the defect occurrence as close to zero as feasible. As a result, the solution identified and implemented by the problem solving team was a change in operator work instructions, nearly assuring that the improvement would not be sustainable. In essence, part of the objective was made clear to this team, but the specifics that could guarantee long term sustainability, were never clearly communicated as solution requirements. This leads to common cause 2 above, an unacceptable solution.
Merely changing operator work instructions to address a chronic quality issue that could lead to a loss of business, should not be considered a viable solution. Based on this resolution the long term impact of reducing the occurrence of this defect should be considered negligible. Although we would all like to think that our operators precisely follow written operator instructions, each of us has countless data points to demonstrate that this is wishful thinking in most cases. If the criticality of a defect is such that significant business will be lost, a solution that is completely dependent on operator behavior is undeniably a very risky strategy, and must be considered unacceptable.
Unfortunately Project-A also had an unacceptable solution set stemming from the lean workshop mentioned above. The method used for once again rearranging that equipment like a game musical chairs, was to utilize cutouts of the equipment, material flow, operators, etc. and place them on a large plant layout drawing in different configurations. This process was marginally successful, as oftentimes happens the loudest individual on the team seemed to have the most leverage, but was perhaps not the most knowledgeable. The team grew weary as the day grew short and consensus was reached for the next layout. At the 11th hour someone on the team realized that a critical piece of test equipment had been forgotten in the turmoil. Facing the possibility of starting that daunting exercise from the beginning, the test equipment was simply shoe-horned into a much-too-small slot in the layout and the team disbanded. Clearly this layout with the wayward tester would not even meet the objectives of a lean layman, but the activity proceeded and once again the production line was rearranged. Can you guess just how sustainable this value stream layout became?
At this point you are probably thinking that these questionable examples would never happen in your facility, under your watch, right? Unfortunately just like in those irrefutable Dilbert cartoons, we all have the same problems, just to a greater or lesser degree. If you are having significant issues with sustainability, you may need to probe a bit deeper and your findings may surprise you. Inadequate upper management support may just be an easier sustainability pill to swallow than the truth.
Like the first two projects, Project-C displayed the same common problems jeopardizing the long term sustainability of the project improvements. The objectives were relatively clear in terms of increasing capacity and productivity. But once again, there appeared to be minimal forethought applied to the long term goals. Since this plating line was one of 12 in this facility, and certainly not the only one with fundamental issues, it was unclear as to how transferrable the solutions had to be to the other lines. In addition, this project more than the other two mentioned, suffered from common cause number 3 above, limited incorporation.
A team was assembled led by the Lean Manager who was also a Six Sigma Black Belt. The plating line had not been well maintained, the tooling was in very poor condition and much of it was not usable clearly impacting capacity, 5S was sorely needed, along with many other improvements and updates. Although the Lean Six Sigma Project was successful in regard to achieving the required productivity and capacity targeted, sustainability is highly questionable.
The primary reason that these improvements have little chance of being sustained is due to lack of integration, number 3 above. The new requirements to maintain the 5S improvements, keep the tooling useable, complete the preventative maintenance and more, were never integrated into current documentation, training, standardized work or required practices. There was no read across planned for the other 11 plating lines, no one had responsibility for maintaining the improvements after the lean team disbanded, the plating lines were not high priority in the facility, and the lessons learned and training were not widely distributed. If improvements are never fully integrated into existing business processes, operator work instructions, maintenance requirements, layered process audits, management reviews and more, it is guaranteed they will not be sustained over time. Short term the results of the plating workshop were very impressive. Long term the probability of sustaining these improvements even six months is doubtful. Other crises will emerge, resources will be scarce, other projects will materialize and we may view the lack of success due to management, and the obvious lack of support.
Possibly if the original objective clearly required that the solution set be fully integrated into the existing business processes, and the lessons learned had to be transferrable to the other 11 plating systems, and a detailed plan was developed to follow up on a regular cadence, this project could result in long term success. When project teams are allowed to claim victory in the short term and then scatter, and it is someone else’s job to sustain the improvements from the projects for months and years to come, the likelihood of long term sustainability is minimal. I have visited many manufacturing facilities, and if I had just one dollar for every shadow board I have seen that is primarily empty with tools and gadgets scattered all around, I could quit working and retire! I blame this on integration, or lack thereof. Effort is expended to put these solutions in place, but minimal to no effort is expended to integrate them into required practices, expectations for the operators, layered audits and other fundamental business processes.
Another challenge that materialized with Project-A, the assembly line rearrangement, is the absolutely appalling perspective the operators, supervisors and support personnel had of the whole subject of lean implementation. With that string of failures, over and over using what was touted as the formula for future manufacturing success, it would be difficult to turn this group into believers regardless of the number of future successes. These associates had such a bad taste in their mouth from the constant churning of poorly planned “solutions” that they were most likely forever distrustful of anything remotely related to lean principles. This is a lofty hurdle to overcome, as most success depends on support of the entire organization. Frankly those lean leaders should have moved on to other opportunities and given that musical chairs line a break for awhile. This might also have allowed management to identify the shortcomings with the previous attempts, and to develop a suitable set of objectives for a future lean workshop. We frequently hear that “lean is a journey” and continuous improvement never stops that is why it is continuous. But this organization was not just demonstrating this journey, they were demonstrating repetitive failure, which unfortunately they were able to sustain!
Hopefully these examples have illustrated several important precursors to continuous improvement sustainability. These include:
- Definition – Clearly defined objectives:
- Must be specific and obtainable
- Should consist of short term and long term requirements (sustainability)
- Must include read across and lessons learned deliverables
- Resolution – Clarify solution robustness expectations (preventive, detection, containment, etc.)
- Incorporation – Spell out detailed business integration expectations
There really is nothing magical about sustaining the many changes, updates and upgrades being made on your continuous improvement journey. The mere application of newly acquired tools and processes, whether they be related to lean principles, Six Sigma problem solving or some other methodology du jour, does not negate the required fundamentals of any problem resolution activity. Without a very clear problem statement including both short and long term project objectives, well defined action items with ownership, clearly defined roles and responsibilities especially after the original team disbands, and perhaps a few other essential building blocks, sustainability will continue to be an unobtainable vision.
If these examples are not relatable, and your senior management is clearly supportive of continuous improvement, but sustainability still eludes your organization, consider performing a post mortem on those solutions that were not maintained. Keep an open mind and start with the inputs to the project, so that the analysis is not just solution-centered. The findings may highlight the fact that the project was doomed from the beginning due to some or all of the above mentioned hazards. Conversely an issue that is unique to your organization might be identified and can be mitigated prior to your next continuous improvement adventure.
