Aaron U. Bolin, Ph.D.

Process Simulation - Before and After

2019-04-25T12:33:00.000-07:00

Here’s a somewhat unique solution to the Lean Six Sigma Green Belt Statapult Simulation.

This team removed four positions (customer liaison, process observer, sorter, and time observer), eliminated unnecessary paperwork, automated the ball return, standardized the ping pong ball, and stabilized the catapult.

While not a world-record setting performance, they get bonus points for labor efficiency.

https://youtu.be/FaxNkU4v3U8

From Activity to Effectiveness: Unifying Efforts with a Common Vision and Roadmap

2018-11-19T10:25:00.000-08:00

In 2012, the Navy reorganized the administration of pay and personnel under a consolidated organizational hierarchy. Part of the reason for the reorganization was to improve the capabilities and standardization of the Command Pay and Personnel Administrators (CPPA).

Work began immediately on improving systems for CPPAs, improving training for CPPAs, improving policy for CPPAs, etc. The work was somewhat unbalanced though, because some streams of the development could proceed much more rapidly than others. In fact, the difficulty surrounding lack of synchronization among the development streams created significant friction on more than one occasion.

Because the pace of improvements accelerated in 2017-2018 to coincide with other developments around the domain, these lack of synchronization difficulties became unbearable.

Through a series of weekly meetings with a cross-section of stakeholders, we carefully documented requirements for a mature CPPA capability and then mapped these requirements to existing and future initiatives (see figures above).

Although documenting and synchronizing requirements and initiatives is not an original idea, the benefits were immediate and unmistakable. Many of the existing synchronization issues vanished through simple conversation among the stakeholders, and development for slow-moving streams accelerated by giving them higher priority in the development stack. More importantly, we began to see small but measurable improvements in CPPA performance that could be tied directly to the now unified vision and roadmap. Simply having a planned roadmap made the trip run more smoothly.

AISES and SWE 2018

2018-11-06T12:12:00.001-08:00

I continued to support the Navy’s recruiting mission in 2018 by attending the American Indian Science and Engineering Society conference and the Society of Women Engineers conference. At the conferences, we provided instruction in lean six sigma fundamentals as a way to support the conference communities and to acquaint participants with Navy career opportunities. We also participated in the career fair to have a better opportunity to share details with individuals interested in Navy career paths.

Lean Six Sigma Milestone: 1,000 Students

2018-03-30T12:16:00.001-07:00

At the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) annual conference, professionals crowded in to the room to hear the Navy presentation on Lean Six Sigma.
A total of 82 students packed a room designed for 50; somewhere in the room is my 1,000th student!

The good news is that the demand for Lean Six Sigma content remains strong; young professionals clearly see the link between process improvement skills and career advancement.
If there is bad news, then it lies in the Navy's drifting away from the tools and techniques of Lean Six Sigma toward other process improvement systems.

This may in fact be the end of a chapter --- we are now looking ahead to DESIGN THINKING as a way to improve Navy processes.

DESIGN THINKING captures the basic essence of Lean Six Sigma, but it focuses more deliberately on design from an end-user's perspective.
Okay, so now it is time to find my first DESIGN THINKING student!

Everyone Likes to Win!

2017-12-19T07:32:00.000-08:00

With our most recent round of Green Belt training, I've now trained 965 students in the principles of lean six sigma.

The command emphasis on lean six sigma has shifted and now focuses on a simplified approach that centers around Lean Kata.
I've also switched roles which means I do a lot less training nowadays. I'm not sure if I'll ever get a chance to reach the 1,000 lean six sigma student milestone.

However, one thing has been constant. Regardless of the composition of the students, regardless of the simulation used, and regardless of the setting --- everyone like to win.
Something about a team-based problem solving simulation is very intrisinically motivating, especially when coupled with competition.
If I could bottle this level of motivation and bring it back to the job site, process improvement would explode.

The winning crew from the most recent course is pictured here. Although they didn't break any world records, they did a nice job of eliminating waste, reducing variation, and managing bottlenecks.
Congrats to the Ballers for a job well done.

Packing the Room at Society of Asian Scientists and Engineers National Conference

2017-10-19T13:08:00.001-07:00

For the Navy Lean Six Sigma workshop at Society of Asian Scientists and Engineers National Conference, we expected 48 attendees based on pre-registrations. When 113 people showed up, we worked with the conference staff to bring in some extra chairs and pack the room.

The attendees were very engaged throughout the workshop and left with a fundamental understanding of lean, six sigma, and theory of constraints.

Note to the fire marshal: we stayed within the 159-person room capacity limit.

Just Hanging Out with an Astronaut

2017-09-26T12:29:00.000-07:00

I recently attended the 2017 American Indian Science and Engineering Society National Conference in Dever as a presenter. During the conference, I had the opportunity to meet Navy CDR (ret) John Herrington, the first person registered with a Native American Tribe to go into space. He was really interesting and friendly. He is pictured here in the center.

Hawthrone Effect, Theory of Constraints, and Travel Claim Processing

2017-08-29T08:17:00.000-07:00

While not a controlled experiment, I had the opportunity recently to observe a version of the Hawthorne Effect applied to travel claim processing.

For decades, the standing goal for travel claim processing has been 30 days from the end of travel (TVL End) to paid. Conventional wisdom viewed the standing goal as somewhat unrealistic though, because a portion of the timeline is dependent on the customer's timeliness. Wisdom says that if the customer submission lag is very long, then the travel claim processor cannot meet the 30-day goal.

In mid-July, a large backlog of claims at JAX caught the attention of upper management. The backlog was not unusual, but management interest in the backlog was something new. Upper management began to pay a lot of attention to the JAX travel claim processing operation and communicated this interest with frequent inquiries.

Without any additional resources, the JAX team shifted into high gear and wiped out most of the backlog by the end of the month. TPC is a second processing location and is included in the charts as a point of reference. The charts show that JAX had done a good job of training its customer base to submit claims promptly, but they were squandering this advantage by keeping a large backlog awaiting processing and by processing at a slow rate. Once these two issues were corrected, JAX broke with conventional wisdom and met the standing goal.

American Indian Science and Engineering Society Leadership Summit 2017

2017-05-15T08:07:00.000-07:00

At the AISES Leadership Summit, I had the opportunity to deliver a white belt workshop while in uniform. It was a great way for me to support the active duty recruiting mission as a reservist.

Students and professionals from all over the country converged in Chandler, Az to celebrate the contributions of Native Americans in science and engineering. We trained a small group in the principles of Lean Six Sigma in preparation for the larger national convention later this year.

Capability Maturity Model: Reassessment

2017-02-07T10:46:00.001-08:00

Our initial capability maturity model assessment in March of 2016 was eye opening. In spite of using an informal and internal assessment method, the assessment results were a little shocking to the system. An 'F' was the final score; we scored an 'F' even though we provided all of the ratings ourselves based on our subjective understanding of organizational operations.

We also discovered that understanding the CMMI model is a lot easier if you can anchor the conversations in a concrete analogy. We chose hotdogs. As we went through each of our focus questions, we compared our operations against a hotdog stand. So, for Requirements Management (REQM), we asked, "if we were a hotdog business, what level would our requirements management process fit?" At level 0, we are not currently making hotdogs (i.e., not doing Requirements Management). At level 1, we can make hotdogs but we do so inconsistently (i.e., we do Requirements Management sometimes but not others). Each area has several focus questions that are very specific.

Another really useful part of this exercise was the impact it had on our strategy moving forward. The CMMI informal assessment made us realize that we were focusing on things in the wrong order. The visual analogy of a pyramid structure helped us realize that we needed to focus more of our efforts on completing the base of the pyramid, things like consistent Service Delivery (SD), before trying to develop a comprehensive Risk Management (RSKM) plan that was higher up.

In January of 2017, we repeated the process. Although we made some progress, we still got an 'F' as a final grade. There are 1,000 reasons why we didn't make more progress, but the reassessment results are actually a good news story. Our more focused efforts strengthened our foundation, and the momentum generated by that focus will be exponential. I expect us to have moved into the 'D' range by summer's end and into the 'C' range within a year. At that time, we may start looking at a formal independent assessment --- one that is a little more objective.

Tons of maturity model information is available at SEI (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/).

Green Belt Triple Crown Winners

2016-09-22T11:45:00.000-07:00

In the green belt course, the process simulation calls for teams of 4-6 students to manufacture 'hits' by shooting ping pong balls from a catapult onto a target.

The simulation has evolved slightly over the years to emphasize specific learning objectives. In its current form, students also track yield and net profit.

In a class size of 20, four teams compete with each other to improve the process. It is rare for one team to win the competition in all three categories.

In fact, the first triple crown was awarded in August of 2016. Congrats to the Juan Won One team!

Running Faster by Improving the Accuracy of the Stopwatch: When the Preferred Solution is to Blame the Data for Poor Performance

2016-04-22T13:28:00.001-07:00

In August of 2015 (nine months from the time of this writing), I was asked to help improve to process of retiring medical treatment records when service members separate. With clear direction from senior levels of the organization, the urgency of figuring out how to retire the medical treatment records in 45 days or less was palpable.

The problem of late records, at least on the surface, was very solvable. First, the record had to be located. Next, the record was shipped to a scanning facility. Finally, the scanning facility would produce a digital image of the hard-copy file and archive it electronically.

Fourty-five days seemed like plenty of time to accomplish the task. The scanning facility, by contract, had 14 days to complete the scanning and archive functions, so the medical treatment facilities had 31 days to locate and ship the record. Because service members generally begin the separation process months in advance, the medical treatment facilities could actually start the process of locating the records early and ship them to the scanning facility on the day of separation.

At the first stakeholders' meeting that I attended, the project sponsor made it crystal clear in her kickoff message that only one solution would be considered -- we must develop a new enterprise-wide IT system to track separations data and compute performance metrics on the speed with which we retire medical treatment records. The sponsor insisted that meeting the 45-day timeline was currently impossible because data about who was separating from service and when was less than perfect. Sometimes the names on the separation list changed, because service members made last minute decisions. Sometimes the names on the separation list were incomplete, because service members occasionally leave service without warning (e.g., if a death occurs). Sometimes the separation list had extra names, like when a reservist is temporarily assigned to active duty and then returns to reserve duty.

When I pointed out that even if the data were perfectly accurate and instantaneous that over 40% of the records would still be late, the sponsor let me know that I simply did not understand the complexities of the data issue. When I asked questions about how the 'data issue' could cause 5-10% of the records to never be found, the conversation became somewhat heated.

I really didn't understand. How would an expensive enterprise-wide IT system solve the fundamental treament record management issues that appeared to be the root cause of the delays? Why were we waiting until the service member separated to find the treatment record? Why were some records still hard copy when we had a system with the capability to keep digital records?

Besides, a new IT development would take at least two years to design, develop, test, and field. Senior leadership had made it clear that the problem should be solved by the end of the next fiscal year (September 2016).

Nine months later, what have we accomplished? The data has improved; we implemented several minor changes to address data accuracy and timeliness. However, the IT solution is still at least a year from being fielded.

Now, we can say with greater accurracy that the treatment records are late and/or lost. We have improved our stopwatch but lost the race.

The irony is that if we had focused on improving the process of managing treatment records that we would have simultaneously improved the quality of the data.
By definition, a better process will generate better data. It does not necessarily work in reverse though --- efforts to improve performance data do not automatically drive a better process.

Hands In

2016-03-03T12:36:00.001-08:00

I learn more about leadership, motivation, and training in 60-minutes by coaching a 7-8 year old basketball team than I could learn in a month on the job.

The reason is a little counter-intuitive. I can make 100 leadership mistakes in a minute at practice, maybe more. I have my own little 10-person developmental laboratory where I can try out leadership strategies, write and revise training plans, and directly apply motivational techniques with the ability to get immediate feedback on their effectiveness. In this case, my DPMO (defects per million opportunities) is quite high --- but I learn something from each mistake.

This picture was taken right after a 32-8 victory. During this game, I learned (1) many hands make light work, (2) most production will almost always come from a core team, and (3) all role players are star performers in the right circumstances.

On the last point, one of our role players had not scored up to this point in the season. In an effort to motivate her, the grandparents offered her $20 per basket. Being a clever player, she told her teammates about the offer and together they conspired to create shot opportunities. Four baskets and $80 later, a star performer was born. Although the payment was a one-game offer, she continues to perform at the higher standard and is now my 3rd leading scorer for the season.

CMMI for Service as Process Improvement

2016-01-26T13:24:00.001-08:00

Capability maturity models answer the question: What are the characteristics of a high functioning organization? The defacto standard maturity model is managed by SEI (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/) and provides a detailed description of what highly mature organizations do.

As a process improvement tool, a CMMI model provides a standard against which the baseline organization can be compared. Any gaps between the standard and the baseline organization points the way for future improvement plans. The value of the model lies in the assessment material; it forces you to look across a broad array of processes and compare your organization to a consistent standard. Because the standard does not change, any reduction in gaps between the baseline and the standard represents progress for your organization.

The summary graphic shown here is my depiction of the CMMI for Service standard. It consists of 24 must-do processes that define a highly mature organization. Each abbreviation brick represents an important process area for a mature organization. As an example, the REQM brick represents requirements management.

Each brick in the pyramid is kind of like an individual assignment. You score the brick 0-3 based on how well your organization accomplishes that process. Then you combine scores on all of the bricks to determine your final grade -- your capability maturity level which is scored 1-5 (or F to A).

To conduct a formal CMMI assessment can be a monstrous undertaking that requires payment to outside assessors. In my organization, we are planning to start with an internal and informal assessment -- just to get us started and establish a baseline. We are the process now of translating the CMMI materials into focus questions for our organization.

DMADV for Travel Claims

2015-12-09T06:54:00.000-08:00

The Navy's annual budget for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves is roughly $800 million. That sounds like a lot of money until you consider the scope and size of the effort. Between 110,000 and 160,000 PCS travel claims are processed each year. These claims include various allowances for time in training, family relocation, temporary lodging, and house hunting.

Because the Navy relies on rotational duty assignments by design and Sailors are entitled to PCS-related compensation by law, the expenses associated with PCS moves are a predictable cost of doing business.

However, the speed and accuracy of travel claim settlements has a significant impact on the operational availability of funds during the execution year. Adequate funds to safely cover all PSC-related expenses are obligated in advance of travel, and these funds must be held in abeyance until the travel claim is settled once travel is completed. Any excess obligations can then be de-obligated and used to fund additional PCS-moves. The goal is to settle travel claims within 30 days of travel completion. The process baseline in fiscal year 2015 was a median settlement time of 38 days. In addition, a small number of claims are never settled which ties up funds and creates the possibility of Sailor indebtedness to the Navy for advances paid on travel expenses.

We convened a meeting of the travel claim processing stakeholders in December of 2015 to discuss ways to (1) improve customer service, (2) improve the timeliness of travel claim settlements, and (3) improve the traceability of funds for the purposes of audit readiness. The group quickely settled on a DMADV methodology as an organizing framework for the effort. DMADV stands for Define, Measure, Analyze, Design, and Validate; it is a modified version of the familiar DMAIC model for lean six sigma process improvement. The DMADV framework is used when designing a new process, and DMAIC is more appropriate for refining an existing process.

After constructing a high-level conceptual diagram (see figure), the stakeholders designed a pilot test of the new process and constructed a Plan of Actions and Milestones (POAM) for execution of the pilot. The pilot test will run for a period of six months, includes a control group (i.e., all claims not in the pilot), and a thorough plan to evaluate the pilot against the measurable goals of the effort. If successful, the pilot will result in a Navy-wide implementation of the improved travel claim settlement process.

Telling a Good Story

2015-10-06T09:16:00.000-07:00

I recently came across a fantastic news story in one of our process improvement efforts. Unfortunately, the effort and accomplishment was not fully appreciated -- due in part to the way the information was presented. Month after month, we presented the change as an unadorned bar chart. The bar chart showed clear improvements, but the sense of story was lacking.

After working with the team, we applied three recommendations to improve how the information was communicated.
1. We added control limits to the chart to convey a sense of context. How do we know when something changed? When the line breaks the control limits, something has changed.
2. We decided to show both the meter (the # of expired LIMDU PRDs) and the levers (the actions we had taken to influence change).
3. We made the math easy. Senior leadership no longer needs to calculate the size of the impact or guess; we spelled out the accomplishment explicitly.

Measures of Performance: A Losing Record with a Winning Spirit

2015-06-11T09:32:00.000-07:00

How do you measure performance in a recreational league?
Do you take into account bad umpires who don't seem to know the rules of the game?
Does your assessment take into account teams from competitive leagues who stay sharp in the off-season by playing in a recreational league?
Do the league mandated priorities of first fun, second learning, third winning play any role?

Although we have one game remaining, we will end this season with a losing record (currently, we are 1-7-1). However, we started the season with 5 of 14 players who had significant problems hitting a pitched ball. At our last game, every player on our roster got a hit. We started the season with 7 of 14 players who did not understand the basic flow of the game or how to get the other team out. At our last game, we held a very good team to two points in the first inning (a significant accomplishment for our team).

Everyone plays both infield and outfield. Everyone has improved. Our defensive play as a team has improved by leaps and bounds. And we're having fun. Although it is always more fun to win, we are enjoying the game of baseball.

Unfortunately, the scoreboard has been stubbornly resistant to measuring our true performance.

Building Demand for Black Belts

2015-05-22T05:40:00.001-07:00

Because our deployment strategy has focused on developing bottom-up support for Continuous Process Improvement, we have been very deliberate about making gradual training investments. Initially, we focused on yellow belt and champion training with the role of "belt" for improvement projects supported from CPI program resources. As our trained population of yellow belts and champions grew, we began training green belts and broadening the base of belt leadership for projects. After three years of building, we felt it was finally time to invest in black belt training to expand the leadership team for the CPI program. This photo represents the first group to complete the 160 hour black belt training curriculum using our own instructors.

The Concept of "Process Entitlement" Drives Record Performance

2015-03-03T10:08:00.000-08:00

During Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt training, we introduce the concept of "process entitlement" as a way to drive record performance. Using a simple process simulation with building blocks to make pyramids, we lead a class discussion on what level of performance would be possible if the process was perfect. Perfect is defined as no waste, no variation, no constraints, etc. Collectively, we arrive at a general consensus of the natural physical limits of the process -- the maximum number of pyramids that could be constructed in a 5 minute production period. Then we steer the discussion toward the topic of, "What would have to be different to produce at a rate equivalent to the natural physical limit?" At some point during this discussion, we challenge the students with concepts such as Takt time and process metrics. Then, we reveal the current world record and set production goals somewhere above the current record and below the maximum number possible. The record seems to inch higher with every new class and currently stands at 74 (with a competitor team in the same class producing 73).

Trained With An Expectation of Project Work

2014-12-08T06:54:00.001-08:00

In November, we added 26 newly trained green belts to the program. All students entered the training with the expectation that they would follow through and complete two green belt projects to complete green belt certification. In theory, that should mean that 52 green belt projects will flow out of this one green belt class.

In reality, only about 40 percent of the students (10 of the 26, in this case) historically follow through to complete projects. Some of the reason for the project deficit are (1) the rotational nature of our workforce (i.e., green belts move on to new assignments before completing projects), (2) our "bottom up" deployment strategy that relies on green belts to generate project areas, and (3) our strategy of conducting projects with collateral duty green belts (i.e., project work is voluntary extra duty).

MAES Workshop at the 40th Annual Symposium

2014-10-20T10:00:00.001-07:00

I recently presented an overview of Lean Six Sigma to a group of engineering professionals and students at the 40th Annual MAES Symposium in San Diego. Our Creative shop put together a nice posterboard to put on the eisel outside the event.
The idea was to promote attendance at the event by the symposium attendees.

When to Take Credit for Improvements?

2014-08-20T13:33:00.000-07:00

From August of 2012 through August of 2014, we initiated 50 projects in our relatively modest Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) program. Some of those projects resulted in significant improvements and big financial savings. Some resulted in marginal improvements. And a few had no impact, were never completed, or were cancelled. However, every single one of the 50 projects had collateral benefits and training value to the organization.

By collateral benefits, I mean three types of improvements that are not typically attributed to a CPI program.
1. The first type of improvements are undocumented changes that result from focus on a problem. Whenever I initiate a project and start asking questions about data availability, the process changes for the better. It happens every time. Scrutiny of a process leads to undocumented process improvements.

2. The second type of improvements are documented changes that are not called CPI. These improvements would not have happened if the CPI program did not exist, but no one seems to acknowledge the connection. Changes in a focal process always generate collateral changes in related processes -- often without the need for a follow-on project to drive the change.

3. The third type of improvements are changes that are generated using CPI tools but not part of a formal project. The covert CPI program, at least in my present circumstances, is often a more powerful tool than the overt program. As individuals internalize the principles of CPI, these tools become second nature, and documenting improvements as formal CPI projects become less likely.

As a CPI program manager, I could legitimately credit my program with all of the improvements. Such a stance might be considered an attempt to steal credit that rightfully belongs to other efforts. I could chase some of the collateral benefits and attempt to formally document them as CPI-driven improvements. Such an approach might be perceived as a desperate attempt to make my program seem relevant. Another approach would be to only take credit for improvements that are formally documented in CPI-related projects. Of course, that method would grossly underestimate the value of the CPI program to the organization.

When should a CPI program take credit for improvements? It is hard to offer a definitive answer.

What's In A Record?: Improved Statapult Performance

2014-06-11T09:20:00.001-07:00

We had a stellar Green Belt class last week. We set a new world record for accurate ping pong balls shot with a catapult in 5 minutes. Team Cinco Amigos (pictured here) hit 210 of 233 shots, breaking the old record of 198 hits. However, the overall profit title went to Team Bombs-R-Us, and the overall yield title went to Team Acme Missiles with 98.4 percent accuracy (3.7 Sigma quality). Team Dead Eye was a honorable mention for also breaking the old world record with 201 of 212 shots. Everyone got A's for the day.

Although Cinco Amigos produced the most hits, they also produced 10% waste and finished behind some of the other teams in other performance areas. The cross-team comparison made me rethink how I emphasize the various instructional points in the curriculum. Because I used the idea of breaking the old world record to introduce the concept of process entitlement, I think I may have encouraged the teams to focus exclusively on productivity measures to the exclusion of quality -- not exactly my intention.

Lean Six Sigma Is A Knowledge Management Technique

2014-05-23T10:08:00.001-07:00

Building Organizational Intelligence by Jay Liebowitz
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

View all my reviews "Knowledge management (KM) is the process of creating value from an organization's intangible assets" - Jay Liebowitz

"Knowledge is information with a process applied to it" - Jay Liebowitz
"Many organizations are drowning in information and starving for knowledge" - Jay Liebowitz

I never thought of lean six sigma as a knowledge management technique until know. After reading Liebowitz's introductory chapters, I have a little insight into the overlap and connections between the allied disciplines. I didn't really enjoy the book -- I thought it was light on useful content -- but it definitely made me think.

How to Measure Organizational Learning

2014-04-25T12:39:00.000-07:00

One of my tasks at work recently was to measure organizational learning. "How would I know if my organization is a learning organization," I wondered?

Training activity seemed to be the most common answer. The logic is easy to refute when simply stated: If we offer a lot of training opportunities and a lot of people attend, then we must be a learning organization.
The evidence of individual learning is a change in behavior, or at least a change in the behavioral options available. But how does that translate to the organizational level?

With just a little bit of background reading (thank you Peter Senge), I came up with a tentative checklist. It still needs some refinement, but here it is:

1. Does the organization have a shared vision; does everyone know what it is and how their actions support it?
2. Is personal mastery expected; are learning and growth required of individuals in the organization?
3. Does the organization utilized team-based approaches to learning such as cross-functional teams?
4. Does the organization reflect on Mental Models and Culture and make attempts to adapt these to achieve better results?
5. Does the organization consider the whole System when making decisions; are second and third order effects considered routinely?
6. Does the organization exhibit an effort to adapt to changes in the environment? Are these efforts proactive or reactive?
7. Does the organization use systematic problem identification and problem solving techniques?
8. Does the organization have systems in place to detect and correct errors and mistakes?
9. Does the organization make deliberate efforts to expand its capacity to create results in the future?