Closing the gaps

David Lengacher, a six sigma master black belt, tells us what high dollar consulting firms donÔÇÖt want us to knowÔÇöthere is little return from expensive training programs. The answer is to find the ÔÇ£pullÔÇØ from within. Traditional analysis tools common to continuous improvement initiatives are long overdue for an upgrade, as is the method for selecting those who should be trained in these tools. In todayÔÇÖs business environment, companies are collecting more customer, supplier, and operational data than ever before. This is a trend that will only intensify in the coming years. What most senior leaders are not aware of is just how ill-prepared their middle managers are to analyze not just this growing volume of data, but the complexity of that data as well.┬á The solution is not to send a dozen managers to expensive, flavor-of-the-month training. Nor is the solution to bring in expensive consultants to train a dozen managers in advanced statistical techniques. What high dollar consulting firms donÔÇÖt want you to know is that there is little empirical evidence of the return on investment of either approach. Instead, the real solution is a radical departure from corporate tradition. It is, however, the revival of a practice omnipresent in sports and used there with great success. The solution is to throw down a formidable challenge and then see who rises to it.┬á Many gurus have preached about the art of developing ÔÇ£pullÔÇØ in an organization. However, this still entails pushing out a somewhat covert strategy that will, hopefully, generate pull sometime in the future. What many gurus have failed to mention is that there is a much simpler solution. You would be hard pressed to find a single example of a professional or collegiate sports team anywhere in the US where a coach is executing a multi-month plan in an attempt to develop pull within his team. It simply doesnÔÇÖt happen.┬á Instead, the coach has first hand knowledge of who has the hunger to excel today, who is willing lead right now, and who is willing to learn more than is necessary to make sure of victory next week. Coaches donÔÇÖt try to create pull, they measure the pull they have right now and they reward those who display it accordingly! And coaches do not measure pull every six months, nor once a quarter. They measure pull each and every week. Coaches donÔÇÖt use complex scoring systems involving matrices, weights, or computer software. They simply ask a few simple questions: who is willing to increase their skill level right now?This is the same approach, with slight modifications, that leaders need to take when addressing the gaps in the analytical capabilities of their teams. In a good natured way, leaders should ask their managers to compete for advanced training before anyone is sent to a two-week offsite. This approach is about more than just saving money, which is the first benefit. There are two additional benefits as well.┬á The second benefit is that this approach puts skills training back where it should be, in a place that is highly valued and prized. It is common knowledge that nothing offered in abundance is highly valued. This is the law of supply and demand. The third benefit is that this approach sends a signal throughout the organization that training is not something that is devoid of expectations upon return. If leaders want to get better results from training, they should not waste their time trying to find the most reputable and highly-ranked programs. The answer is not on the outside, the answer is on the inside.So although it may seem counterintuitive, leaders should make advanced skills training more scarce. They should also raise the entrance qualifications to attend training. For example, requiring a statement of the candidateÔÇÖs desire and a statement of how the candidate intends to translate his or her training into tangible benefits for the organization. This can be communicated by simple email or via a phone call. In short, leaders should not be afraid to do what the best coaches do: ask your players to show you how bad they want to excel. Now that we have covered how to choose the right people for advanced training, the next question is what types of skills do they need to cope with the recent data explosion? The most popular solution for most companies is the six sigma body of knowledge. In theory, this sounds like a reasonable choice. After all, six sigma does focus on getting to the root cause of problems and is rooted in statistical methods. However, most six sigma programs have failed to adapt to the changing needs of data driven organizations. Sure, the titles of several programs have evolved over time (e.g. transactional six sigma), but the content of even those newly titled programs has not wandered far off the beaten path that was originally paved in the early ÔÇÖ90s. The tools that are going to be critical in the data-driven future are those tools that focus on sifting through vast amounts of data and return to the analyst a picture that is very easy to interpret. Senior leaders should not shy away from tasking their middle managers with diagnosing their own needs by first conducting research of the following tools:ÔÇó Decision treesÔÇó Discriminant analysisÔÇó Factor analysisÔÇó Principal component analysisÔÇó Cluster analysisOnce managers have conducted some initial research and screened out the critical few tools that seem to be most applicable to their needs, they should then look locally for providers of those techniques. Senior leaders should be wary and avoid the temptation for certification programs. What is needed are results, not certificates. By using this approach managers are not forced to do anything against their will. Instead, they are asked how badly they want to solve their own deficiencies and then they are empowered to select the best remedy. Instead of trying to create pull, leaders should ask their teams to show them pull and give their team members the opportunity to rise to the challenge. ┬á