Does BPM Put the “M” and “C” Into DMAIC?
I recently attended a Lean Six Sigma conference. It’s always interesting to hear evangelists from various industries in different countries sharing their experiences with improving efficiency, effectiveness, and moving towards a culture of high performance and continuous improvement.
It never fails to surprise me how dogmatic many are about their particular flavor of methodology. Within the Lean Six Sigma camp there are Six Sigma purists who will partake of no Lean. There are Lean gurus who speak not of Six Sigma. Then there are the fusionistas, who happily take the best bits of both. (Personally, I’m willing to utilize any tools that get results within a structured framework.) Some proudly advertise their allegiance, while others refuse to be pigeonholed and embrace a more neutral term such as Process Improvement or Operational Excellence. As a pragmatist I tend towards the latter – in my experience, for every person out there in a position of influence who is pro a “Big M” methodology, there will be another who is equally (or more!) anti that same methodology. So why provoke resistance to change over a mere label? Well, that’s just my two cents!
There was a LOT of talk about the need for strong leadership support for any improvement initiative to be successful. This is generally considered a given to the point of being trite, yet the lack of consistently strong and visible leadership is clearly still limiting many companies from scaling their efforts and reaping the fullest possible rewards. One speech on this topic eloquently contrasted a firm’s successful periods of improvement gains under strong sponsorship, with periods of regression under weak, indifferent leadership. So as obvious as it may seem, I still proclaim effective leadership as one of my top prerequisites for success.
But what surprised – or dismayed – me most at the conference was the almost total absence of discussion around BPM. So many organizations well versed in the process perspective, analyzing problems, reducing waste, measuring defects…and so little awareness of the platform that unites all of these methodologies with actual execution, measurement, monitoring and control. Admittedly, Lean and Six Sigma both pre-date BPM, but to me the connection is very clear. BPM addresses process excellence in a holistic way, and in particular enables measuring and controlling far beyond that which can be done manually with checklists and sticky notes.
I guess this labels me as one of the fusionistas!
Posts
2 Responses to “Does BPM Put the “M” and “C” Into DMAIC?”
By Scott Francis on Dec 28, 2008 | Reply
Kalvin-
Read your post and it hits on a theme that we’ve noticed as well. When people are purists (all six-sigma, no lean, or all lean, no six-sigma, or whatever “M” methodology they choose), the question I ask is: what is the value that your purism/dogma achieves for your organization? or for your customer(s)? If the goal is to achieve value, then purism only matters if it enhances value (or if the lack thereof detracts from value). After all, there is no mutual exclusivity about applying lean techniques versus six-sigma techniques…!
Finally, your last point on BPM. Here you have hit the nail upon the head. BPM provides the software foundation for the ongoing M and C in DMAIC – it isn’t, in my opinion, about the initial measurement – sampling techniques and discipline may get you measurement and control in the short run – its about collecting measurements for years, and applying controls for years, into the future. I can’t help but wonder if part of the reason organizations pursue a methodology as if it were a religion is to compensate for the lack of system-software support in their organizations. (It may have been a really logical course of action before good BPM software hit the market as well).
I know for our own organization, we see our ability to apply the techniques of lean and six-sigma, while backing those techniques with BPM software, as differentiated advantage in our market. Again, you’ll see software folks who put no value in the improvement methodologies, and you’ll see methodology fans who see no value in software (or see it as a distraction from improving the process).
Scott
By Lance on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
We certainly believe in the integration of Lean 6 and BPMS, and have written about it for years. For those organizations who have adopted both, they are missing the boat by not working to realize them in a very visceral way. I don’t know if you heard the term “Next Gen Six Sigma” at the conference but that was something being batted around, next generation Lean Six Sigma. So what does that mean? Well, depending on the practioners you ask it can mean a lot of differnt things. To me, Lean6NG means incorporating process-centric technology as a vehicle throughout the DMAIC/DFSS roadmap; that has been the missing piece.