You have said that ERR is about increasing organizational reliability, but can it be implemented on a small scale? The ERR approach can certainly be applied to a single activity; in fact, that’s how the process begins. However, many RIFs cross organizational boundaries, and so ERR becomes increasingly effective as more activities are included.

Can you tell us about times when ERR has not worked well? Yes there have certainly been some. ERR relies on a fine-grained understanding of activities, and this can not be achieved without active participation of those whose work is being addressed. The “core team” are agents of transformation, but they cannot impose it. Where managers have tried to build a “core team” without including some people with recent hands-on experience of the kinds of activities being addressed, they generally struggle to succeed. A diagonal cross section of people from across the organization offers the best prospect for success. Another way to fail is by asking the “core team” to work on the most serious and pressing problems first, before they have built up their skill and experience.

You have said that ERR does not address errors of judgement, but is there a way of avoiding that sort of error? There are many ways of trying to avoid conscious errors and most organizations already use a variety of strategies to combat them. Errors of execution are generally dealt with much less effectively, and that is why we have tended to concentrate on them. However, we do offer advanced training that can offer fresh insights into avoiding conscious errors.

Is ERR an alternative to Six Sigma, or can they work together? Although ERR works well as a stand-alone approach, it is also complementary to Six Sigma, and they work well together. Some of the same people are likely to be involved in both.

How quickly would ERR pay for itself? Add up the cost of time spent on damage limitation when errors occur and you have a sense of how much you might save. If human error is implicated in 50% of your measured quality failure costs, and you reduce that by a few percent in the first year, you will have covered your costs. However, most costs associated with human error are not usually measured, although their effects are felt as efficiency burdens and frustrations.

Is top management’s support of error-proof activities usually from their experience with past and current failures, or are they looking at industry practices? I would really like to say that most people are looking at error proactively because they realize its value. Of course the reality is most people only start to look at human error when it becomes a big problem for them. Perhaps it is because they’ve experienced an error with serious consequences. Often, work on error is kicked off by something that needs immediate attention, but the lessons learned from studying those RIFs can often be applied throughout the organization. This encourages further work to improve human reliability, once its value becomes obvious.

I work in the railroad industry, and often, our locomotive engineers fail to cut out on the initial operating locomotive when changing directions. This, in turn, leads to delays. How would you address this type of issue? The work of a locomotive engineer is systematic. The use of a checklist is useful for avoiding forgetting steps in a process but cannot guarantee compliance, even where this is intended. The reality is that people will tend to rely on their memory and this creates vulnerability. We can look for ways in which we can better direct the attention of the engineers to “risk critical” parts of the task by reducing relevant RIFs. You will need to develop a core team, comprised of people from across the organization with relevant experience. Once these folk understand why human error happens, and have a systematic way of exploring the relevant activities, they will have no difficulty of reducing the probability of the kind of error that you describe. (Not 100% but a definite improvement) If you need help to develop a “core team,” details of a training program can be found on the SAM Group websites: www.statamatrix.com www.orielinc.com

Are there specific work scenarios where ERR is best applied (i.e., call center, data entry, manufacturing, etc.? ERR can be applied to any kind of work in which people are very familiar with the tasks. It has been used across all kinds of sectors and organizations (e.g. pharmaceuticals, aerospace, healthcare, financial services, transportation, food processing, IT providers, etc.) and at all levels. It has also been applied in all sorts of environments ranging from laboratories, to administrative areas, production areas, high security areas, hospital wards, and so on.

How do you handle resistance to cultural change when implementing ERR? To enhance an organization’s reliability, of course, there has to be cultural change. But that cultural change is a result of work on error, as much as it is a driver. When work begins on addressing RIFs, those that are easiest to identify and deal with tend to be those that are relatively tangible and “mechanical.” Many of these will have been an irritant to people and they will be pleased to see them being addressed. This reinforces the message that, “the focus is on activities rather than individuals,” which begins to dissipate a blame culture. This lays a foundation for starting to address more sensitive issues that might need attitudinal shift and a willingness to change deeply rooted ways of operating. Some occupational groups may well be more resistant than others but as those more willing to change demonstrate the benefits, those inclined to resist find their position increasingly untenable and difficult to defend. This is especially true where the consequences of error cause physical harm and/or damage reputations.

If you have a choice between starting with ERR, or say, something like Six Sigma, where would you start? I think it would depend on the organization and what kinds of issues it is trying to address. In areas where there may be a lot of repeat errors going on across the boards, I might start with something like Six Sigma, especially if the causal factors are relatively “mechanical.” For organizations worried about lower probability errors with serious consequences, I might be inclined to start with ERR. Or better yet, run and ERR program in conjunction with Six Sigma initiative, if both approaches can be useful. ERR tends to favor organizations with mature continuous improvement programs, but has worked well as a stand-alone.

If an organization is constantly taking on too many projects and people have too much to do, can the organization ever make good progress? To begin with, let me remind you of differences between stressors and structural Risk Influencing Factors (RIFs). While stressors might make life uncomfortable, they alone (usually) do not cause error. What they do is expose vulnerabilities in the design of processes, information systems, workplace facilities, and specific competence deficits. If your organization often takes too much on, that seems unlikely to change soon. However, that doesn’t mean that you cannot work on all of those other issues, so that everyone can better tolerate the pressures. As I explained during the Webinar, I was focusing on “errors of execution” (everyday slip-ups and lapses), and so my remarks apply in particular to that kind of error (and they are 85% of errors). However, errors of judgement and other more conscious kinds of errors are also affected adversely by stressors. The more conscious activities can also be made more robust, although an additional range of techniques is likely to be needed. In summary I would say, life in lots of organizations is too hectic for comfort, but you can still drive down your vulnerability to error with a systematic and well-informed program.

Does your model also include some form of standard work? I’m not clear about what this question is asking, although there seem to be two possibilities. (A) Does the ERR model address routine activities at work, like repetitious task? Yes very much so. Many errors of execution happen on familiar activities on which it is difficult to focus and sustain undivided attention. (B) Does the ERR model itself have any standard “off the shelf” fixes for common RIFs? Yes it does, although they might need adapting to specific kinds of work.

Where can I find the 60 questions? On the Oriel website: www.orielinc.com , titled the Error Risk Survey.

Where can I find the list of the 400 RIFs? The PIRCOS Knowledge Base (which details the RIFs) is licensed to SAM Group clients who want to train “core teams.” It is not normally supplied on any other basis.

Can/how does the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) methodology support ERR? You might remember that during the Webinar I explained the futility of trying to guess (forecast/predict) where low probability errors might occur. ERR works by identifying as many RIFs as possible in an area or stream of activity, and dealing with them proactively. FMEA works reactively, or speculatively, to understand contributory causes of a specific outcome and as such does not have a place in the ERR model. However, FMEA is a powerful technique and there is no reason why the PIRCOS Knowledge Base (which details the RIFs) cannot be “plugged into” FMEA to extend it’s utility when addressing human failure modes. We have done so many times, to good effect.

Have you seen more errors from the results of routine/repetitive work rather than performing multiple or various tasks for a person? Both kinds of work are vulnerable to errors of execution although the specific failure modes may differ. In the case of routine/repetitive work where people become very familiar and/or skilled at it, it might become almost impossible for them to focus consciously on it for more than a few moments at a time, however hard they try. Indeed if they try to it might disrupt their fluency on the task. They will also suffer decay of vigilance beyond (typically) about 20 minutes or so. It takes detailed and well informed design to maintain attention to detail on this sort of work, although ironically this kind of work is often regarded as “simple,” at least by those who don’t have to do it. In the case of somebody who has to perform multiple tasks, the problem is more so one of division of attention. This is especially difficult where these tasks are carried out concurrently, so that several things have to be “borne in mind” at the same time. Frankly, unless structural support is built into such work, it is just a matter of time before something gets missed, or mixed up.

The presentation was very fast paced. Will handouts be available? It would be useful to spend more time reviewing some of the slides. This material is only available on license to our clients. However, if you have any specific questions, we would be pleased to try to answer them. Many of the concepts mentioned during the Webinar are addressed in our white paper, “The Final Frontier: Improving Reliability by Reducing Human Error,” which is available for download on our website www.orielinc.com.

Oriel, a SAM Group Company, hosted a Process Management Webinar on March 5, 2008. Guest speakers were Rohit Ramaswamy, Oriel’s Vice President of Strategy and Client Relationships and Brian McKibben, Senior Consultant and author of The Sam Group’s Process Managment materials. Listed below are some basic background questions regarding process managment as well as the participant questions and answers from the session.

You can also listen to the audio (WAV file, 25 MB).

Background Questions

How is that different from the Six Sigma leadership steps?
The Six Sigma leadership steps happen at discrete points in time, usually related to specific improvement events. The Process Management infrastructure is a closed-loop, continuous process that can’t be accidentally discontinued if temporarily side-lined by short-term business priorities.

What is involved in establishing a Process Management infrastructure?
The top management team leads three steps: 1) Identify the PM elements already existing in the business. 2) Identify the PM elements that are weak or missing. 3) Fix or develop the PM elements identified in 2.

Who would be involved in implementing PM in an organization?
The top management team and the owners of the core (value-added) business processes. With help from several PM staff members.

What obstacles might have to be overcome to successfully implement PM?
1) Lack of strategic business goals for accomplishment of specific competitive differentiators. 2) Lack of a Process Management wheel, components and implementation roadmap. 3) Lack of leadership commitment and involvement. 4) Lack of PM coaching assistance. 5) Misaligned enabling processes (support systems) that cause the organization to under-perform on critical PM functions.

Participant Questions

How do you tie in the alignment with a strategic planning process (such as Hoshin)? Does this get real projects that are worthwhile to the business out on the table and deployed to teams who can work them?
We think of alignment as the activities and behaviors that senior management need to incorporate in order to guide the process improvement effort. Hoshin planning could be one of the tools that management uses to prioritize and deploy real projects, but it may not be the only one. For example, management can decide that it is going to delegate project selection to the operating units, and only be involved in assessing whether these projects support the business and are providing adequate ROI. We do not restrict ourselves in the model to a particular approach. The purpose of the model is to identify and use the best approach for the current circumstances for the organization.

This sounds a lot like Deming’s “path of frustration.” Has that been investigated? Short term or “special cause” firefighting activities have short term results. I would think that would be one of the most consistent issues. True?
Yes - this is exactly true. The Process Management model is intended to help companies build the profound knowledge Deming talks about that really helps organizations build a culture of continual improvement after the obvious opportunities have dried up.

This is starting to sound like “management by results” which has been profoundly rejected by such authors as Brian Joiner. The key is to not look too closely at the results, but to look more closely at what drives results. The point made by Brian about metrics is a key ingredient here. Is that what you are doing?
It is not about management by results, but about process management for the “right” results. By the time “results” happen, it is too late to act. So finding up-stream metrics that monitor what drives results is very important. Other than measuring “cost savings,” most organizations do not measure the effectiveness of their improvement initiatives and improvement practices. PM is about assessing and measuring the effectiveness of the organization’s improvement actions to make sure that what is being done improves the bottom line, has a positive impact on customers, and does a better job of engaging employees.

In a service organization, what elements in Process Management might be unique, and therefore influence which tools are selected and how they are employed?
Service organizations are different from manufacturing companies, but the core concepts of Lean and Six Sigma apply in both worlds. Likewise, there are no Process Management elements that are unique to service organizations. EVERY organization that seeks to be successful at process improvement needs to address ALL elements of the Process Management model. However, the tools (Lean, Six Sigma, SCM, ISO, etc.) that are selected for use within the PM model will depend on what the gaps are and a collaborative dialog on the best way to address the gaps. The way the elements get discussed and the examples used in a service environment should differ from a manufacturing environment. In PM, consistent performance of the PM steps is paramount to decisions on which tools to use within the steps.

How would you counsel an organization to address the inertia that exists in company after several unsuccessful attempts to implement a Continuous Improvement process?
This is a very good question. Over the last twenty years, 70% of leadership teams have stated the results of their improvement initiatives failed to meet their expectations. The approach that we have followed is to identify the “missing ingredients” that cause this frustration. We have then done work to shore up the missing pieces without labeling it as a “continuous improvement” effort. Once more of the infrastructure is in place, and it is possible to demonstrate with obvious visible results that the “missing ingredients” have been addressed, it is then more likely that the organization will engage better in the next attempt. Actions speak louder than words, and in time, the people seeing them begin to accept that things really are different; that they can be empowered to make positive changes.

The Process Management wheel represents a continuous effort, as I understand it, it is “never ending”?
Yes it does - that is the idea of “continuous” improvement

Do you have examples or recommendations for how to measure/capture ROI?
The ROI institute (see website below) provides many tools for measuring ROI. http://www.roiinstitute.net/. We offer support on measuring ROI for process improvement efforts through one of our partner companies.

You can access and review the slides for Journey to Performance Excellence (pdf format), an Oriel Webinar hosted on February 12, 2008. The audio is also available at this link: Performance Excellence WAV file

Here are the questions and answers from our Dec 17, 2007 Webinar on How to Grow Your Company Using Customer Value Analysis. You can use the follwoing link to review the presentation slides (pdf format).

Q. What level of the organization makes the decision to undertake this type of program?
Typically, a senior-level vice president or above makes the decision. This is a strategic program that requires the cooperation of people in various departments including operations, market research, and finance to work together.

Q. Can you give an example of relative perceived value?
Relative perceived value is the ratio of the average perceived-value rating of a company to the average perceived value rating of its competitors. For purposes of simplicity, let’s assume that the luxury car market has only two competitors: Cadillac and Lexus. Let’s further assume that Cadillac is sponsoring the survey and gets an average perceived value rating of 7 while Lexus gets an average score of 9. Cadillac’s relative perceived value would then be 7/9 or approximately 0.78. Similarly, relative perceived price and relative perceived quality are also ratios where a company’s rating is the numerator and the average, aggregate rating of the competition is the denominator.

Q. When you calculate relative value perception, what are the criteria for choosing competitors?
We don’t have criteria for picking competitors because we simply don’t have expertise in every industry. Generally, the executives of the client company define who they are competing against. In areas like consumer durables, however, there are publications like Consumer Reports or trade periodicals that do comparisons based on expert groupings. We’ve never had a problem ascertaining a company’s competitors.

Q. What is the definition of perception? Does it require experience with the product?
By perception, we mean the customer’s evaluation of something. In this type of research, yes, the respondent must have experience with the product (or service).

Q. Please explain the blue line.
The blue line represents what the market regards as fair value. While it might look like the slope of this line would literally be the change in price divided by the change in quality, as it is in Richard D’Aveni’s price-benefit positioning map, it’s derivation is actually more complex. (See Harvard Business Review, November 2007, pp. 110-120.) Once again, in the interest of simplicity, the fair value line takes into consideration both the price competitiveness rating and the perceived quality rating, reducing three dimensions to two. Essentially, we obtain the slope of the line by dividing the slope of (perceived) quality (with respect to perceived value) by the slope of perceived price competitiveness. We also multiply the result by -1 because lower perceived price competitiveness is negatively correlated with actual prices.

Q. So, lower price competitiveness equals higher price. Is this correct?
Yes, that is correct.

Q. Talk about the extremes of the fair value line.
Goods or services perceived as offering low quality at a low price are at the lower left extreme of the line. Those perceived as having high quality at a high price are at the upper right extreme.

If you have further questions or want to find out more about our services, please give us a call or send us an e-mail.

Madison, WI—The results of Six Sigma improvement efforts often fall short of senior management’s expectations. Likewise, the results of many customer surveys sit on shelves and fail to provoke action. Customer Experience Management effectively integrates survey research—specifically, Customer Value Analysis—with proven approaches to the improvement of process performance.Customer Experience Management training is ideal for senior managers in market research, operations, customer service, quality, and financial forecasting as well as Six Sigma Black Belts and Master Black Belts. Our exciting two-day course, offered publicly or at your site, covers the fundamentals of Customer Experience Management and provides the knowledge needed to focus your organization’s improvement efforts for sustainable and profitable growth.

Oriel Incorporated offers consulting and training services to help organizations develop, implement, and sustain the methodologies needed to improve organizational performance. Expertise includes Six Sigma, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, teambuilding, leadership development, change management, process and product design, process improvement, and problem solving. Oriel publishes several well-known off-the-shelf books including The Team Handbook Third Edition, which has sold more than one million copies.

For more information on how Oriel Incorporated can help your organization improve its processes, please visit www.orielinc.com, email cjersild@orielinc.com, or call
1-800-669-8326.

In order for organizations to excel, they must not only improve their processes but also sustain and leverage gains. It is imperative that executives and managers look beyond process improvement projects and understand how to master the control of processes.The Oriel Process Management methodology consists of tools that allow organizations to strategically manage their business over time. A process management system lays the foundation and architecture not only for identifying the critical areas of an organization that need to be improved, but also for managing and sustaining the improvements in a systematic way.By effectively managing cross-functional processes, you ensure a consistent level of service for customers while enabling your organization to decrease costs, reduce cycle times, and increase satisfaction.

Download the Full Whitepaper

We are delighted to announce the publication of our newest white paper “Using Enabling Technology to Maximize Returns from Your Six Sigma Program.”

Many organizations are not seeing the best possible returns from their Six Sigma programs. According to the Aberdeen Group in 2006, “Industry is missing out on billions of dollars in potential savings, sales, and profits each year through ineffective application of Six Sigma tools and methodologies.”

Practitioners have identified lack of leadership support, narrow focus on cost reduction, lack of management oversight, and incomplete understanding of customer needs as factors that limit the effectiveness of Six Sigma programs. However, there is one key factor that has not received enough attention. In our experience, the way Six Sigma programs are currently implemented in most organizations makes it nearly impossible for management to monitor the effectiveness of the program, let alone continually improve by taking advantage of the organizational learning and experience gained over time.

In this paper, we show how organizations can make use of enabling technology that allow all the key activities of Six Sigma or other performance improvement initiative, such as executing projects, managing programs, monitoring processes, and reporting progress, to be performed through a single integrated interface. In this paper, we answer the following questions:  

• What is fragmentation and what does it do to the effectiveness of Six Sigma programs?
• How can enabling technology reduce the impacts of fragmentation?
• What are the key features of enabling technology?
• When should an organization consider implementing enabling technology?
• What is the difference between enabling technologies and existing ERP or BPMS systems ?

In addition to publishing white papers and guidebooks for instructors and students to use in Lean, Six Sigma, and process excellence training, Oriel Incorporated offers consulting and training services to help organizations develop, implement, and sustain the methodologies needed to improve organizational performance. Expertise includes leadership development, change management, teambuilding, Six Sigma, process and product design, Lean, process improvement, and problem solving. Oriel publishes several well-known off-the-shelf books including The Team Handbook Third Edition, which has sold more than one million copies.

To follow the developments at Oriel Incorporated, or to download the complete white paper, please visit www.orielinc.com or call 1-800-669-8326.

Madison, WI - Oriel Incorporated is pleased to announce the publication of Guiding Successful Lean Six Sigma Projects. This handy guidebook can help anyone who takes part in or oversees a Lean Six Sigma initiative.  It summarizes how Lean and Six Sigma can be integrated, key methodologies involved, roles, project steps, and key points you need to check throughout any type of Lean Six Sigma project. 

“We heard from many executives and champions asking for more help in taking Lean Six Sigma from a theoretical discussion to a more hands-on implementation.” said Dana Ginn, one of the authors of the book. “We wanted to create a product that would explain how Lean and Six Sigma could be integrated in a very powerful yet practical way, as well as outline the various methodologies included in a Lean Six Sigma deployment. This guide provides specific guidelines to help organizations deploy design, improvement, and process management efforts under the Lean Six Sigma umbrella. Through a collaborative effort of senior consultants and Lean Six Sigma experts including Lynda Finn, Kevin Kelleher, and Amita Sherwood, we were able to develop this practical guide that can be used by managers, sponsors, coaches, project, or process teams to help ensure a successful Lean Six Sigma initiative. ”

In addition to publishing guidebooks for instructors and students to use in Six Sigma, lean, and process excellence training, Oriel Incorporated offers consulting and training services to help organizations develop, implement, and sustain the methodologies needed to improve organizational performance. Expertise includes leadership development, change management, teambuilding, Six Sigma, process and product design, lean, process improvement, and problem solving. Oriel publishes several well-known off-the-shelf books including The Team Handbook 3rd Edition, which has sold more than one million copies.

For additional information or to follow the developments at Oriel Incorporated, please visit www.orielinc.com or call 1-800-669-8326.

Madison, WI—SigmaFlow, a leading provider of Enterprise Performance Improvement Software, and Oriel, a major business productivity consulting and training organization, today announced an innovative joint offering that integrates Oriel’s Lean training content with SigmaFlow’s Project Portfolio Management Solution for Lean Six Sigma. The offering will be available for purchase by end-customers and for leading training firms to integrate into their own engagements.

Companies face a major challenge in Lean and Six Sigma deployments due to the disconnection of training and reference materials from the software tools used in day-to-day work. The Oriel-SigmaFlow joint offering links training and software tools, from idea generation through project completion, for the best productivity in Lean deployments.

 “By combining Oriel’s leading training methodology with SigmaFlow’s proven software solutions, customers get synergistic productivity,” said Jay Holstine, CEO of SigmaFlow. “The integration of Oriel’s training content and SigmaFlow’s project execution tools provide an end-to-end environment for achieving better results, faster.”

Alan Marash, CEO of Oriel, explains: “We chose SigmaFlow because of their unique approach to web and desktop solutions, which gives executives timely project status updates by tracking actual work being done. Customers gain improved knowledge-sharing and standards for project replication. This solution essentially pays for itself in the first project.” 

ABOUT ORIEL:

Founded in 1982, Oriel is a leading consulting and training organization dedicated to business process improvement and performance excellence. Oriel offers consulting and training services to help organizations develop, implement, and sustain the methodologies needed to improve organizational performance. Expertise includes Lean, Lean Six Sigma, Six Sigma, process and product design, process improvement, leadership development, change management, teambuilding, Six Sigma, and problem solving. Oriel publishes several well-known off-the-shelf books including The Team Handbook Third Edition, which has sold more than one million copies. For additional information or to follow the developments at Oriel Incorporated, please visit www.orielinc.com or call 1-800-669-8326.

ABOUT SIGMAFLOW:

Delivering consistent and efficient process improvement and project execution, the SigmaFlow system navigates users (with tactical Roadmaps, linked on-demand analysis tools, and contextual training) in the same environment where actual project work is done. Executives get real-time knowledge of where each initiative is, and often describe SigmaFlow as the “Global Positioning System” for Process and Project Portfolio Management.

As a leading provider of Best Practice Execution System^® software, SigmaFlow delivers standards, consistency, and productivity for company-wide process management, project execution, and governance. Thousands of process and project management professionals at diverse major organizations such as Albertsons, ConocoPhillips, First Data Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Pratt & Whitney, The World Bank, and Tyco International are improving results by using SigmaFlow software every day. For more information, visit SigmaFlow’s website at www.sigmaflow.com or contact Hal Stebbins at 972-447-8340 or hstebbins@sigmaflow.com.

By Dana Ginn and Lynda Finn

How do you implement Lean to its fullest advantage?  How do you know which approach to use and when to use it?  How do you address the key drivers of waste?  Download the Achieving Lean Success white paper.