Many individuals can be overwhelmed by the complexity of performance-oriented statistical analysis and the mass of quality tools that are available for organizational improvement. Even the Seven Tools of Quality (old or new (“management tools”)) can be overwhelming. The confusion is often exacerbated by a chaotic environment in which little or no data is captured, leadership is composed of fire- and gunfighters (shooting from the hip), and the adoption of a “shotgun” approach to training.

My advice is this – process “transformation” is not always the best solution. Rather than prescribing a dramatic, rapid change, encourage a gradual performance “evolution”, consistently and constantly focusing on the most troublesome organizational issues (management, policy, equipment, process, etc.). You will need tools to do this, but introduce them in a phased approach.

Start with group dynamics theory, brainstorming, affity diagramming, and NGT. Allow the “students” to run with these tools, making mistakes, and applying them during operational meetings. Progress to the point where the questions start to become “why” instead of “what”. Now the strategic journey has begun. Augment existing capabilities with the 5 Whys, Fishbone Diagrams, Tree Diagrams, and Interrelationship Digraphs. Matrix Diagrams and analysis can follow, with a future advance towards FMEA, control charts, etc.

Master Black Belts are (or should be) intelligent individuals. The people that we support are intelligent too. Take the time to coach your students, and allow them the time to test and question the subject matter in realistic, digestible “chunks”.

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): The Balanced Scorecard methodology offers the most robust, out-of-the-box strategic planning, execution, and management solution to date. And yes, I recognize that it can be augmented with other tools. The construct of the four perspectives ensures a holistic view and consideration throughout objective development and monitoring.

In the “for-profit” (and some non-profits) sector, the Learning and Growth perspective supports the Internal Process perspective, which in turn supports the Customer perspective that ultimately supports the Financial perspective.

In other “non-profit” and government sectors, the Resources perspective supports the Learning and Growth perspective, which in turn supports the Internal Process perspective that ultimately supports the Stakeholder perspective.

In any situation, we typically conclude our review of a strategy map at the top. This is a mistake. A mistake that is partly due to the layout of the strategy map itself.

In a purely vertical format, the strategy map reflects a linear and finite approach. The truth is that a strategy map should represent a dynamic, perpetual approach that ensures growth and increased strength. The truth is this – while the “top” perspective on your strategy map should have direct connections to your goals, they should also have supporting connections to your “bottom” two perspectives as well. Let’s consider an extremely generic “for profit” example.

As the improvements in Learning and Growth and complement Internal Process performance optimization, Customers are delighted and revenue increases. This would be the end for a singular fund-raising event. For a business, however, a significant portion of the increased revenue would be subject to reinvestment in Learning and Growth programs and the Internal Processes, which would (hopefully) increase Customer Staisfaction and increase revenue, again. To illustrate this point, I have a circular format for the strategy maps that my clients develop and manage.

While some might claim that this is “just another flavor” or an asthetic modification, I argue that the visual representation is critical for the effective communication of the strategy throughout any organization. Strategic Management is too often treated as the “project of the month/quarter” when in fact it is a living program that transforms and develops with the host organization. A circular, life cycle view of the Strategy Map focuses on continuous performance improvement and communicates a Strategic Management approach that is here to stay.

For templates, contact me via www.strategicorps.com.

Several clients have come forward at one time or another and made statements similar to this: “I understand the DMAIC construct, but how do I select the right projects before progressing through the toll gates? I don’t have enough data to get started with the appropriate analysis, and I am guessing at projects that may or may not be of the highest value.” The answer is simple, but the road to travel is difficult and (insert foreboding music here) fraught with peril.

The simple answer to project selection pre-data: Strategic Alignment. With a strategic plan implemented and managed, certain strategic initiatives (some with key words such as reduce, improve, increase, etc.) should receive priority attention and treatment. Please note the “should” in the previous sentence. Achieving implementation of a strategic plan is a moderately challenging opportunity. It is the management of said plan that can be a beast. I prefer the Balanced Scorecard methodology, and am familiar and proficient with alternate models. Whatever construct the leaders in your organization select, a minimum requirement should be the means for project selection AND prioritization.

You won’t always have the data to perform a formal analysis. Great! That situation indicates that your first efforts should focus on process identification and definition, including flow units, appropriate metrics, and a means of data capture, analysis, and recommendation generation. BUT – you will need to address a lack of strategic alignment if it exists. You don’t want to focus on the reduction of process variation by using a non-standard, “fire-fighting” approach to project selection. Set the standard by assisting with setting the direction.

You are a facilitator, a program/project manager, a negotiator, and a coach.You have a mission, values, and vision finalized and posted around your organization. You have a completed strategy map. You have even worked to finish all targets and initiatives. You have a Balanced Scorecard. Now you are a shepherd. Do not lose any measures.

Some companies fail in their implementation of the Balanced Scorecard methodology because they focus intensely on their financial measures and lose sight of the others. The “balance” of the scorecard does not stop at the completion of the strategy map. The “balance” must be applied in the creation phase and maintained through the continuous implementation phase, from introduction through each periodic strategic review and revision. This includes metric collection, analysis, and improvement actions for every objective.

What are you experiences with this potential predicament?

With perceived fluctuations in the US economy, many organizations have cut back on funding for education, training, and CPI programs in order to “save” money. This is a small short-term gain and an enormous long-term loss. As variability increases, waste abounds and leads to a hemoraging of revenue – with profitability losing pressure at an exponential rate. By removing these essential programs, these organizations are placing a band-aid on an open chest wound. In times on instability (real or perceived), CPI training, education, and implementation are key elements to survival and success.

Lean, Six Sigma, and other methodologies are not “blue sky” programs. They are here specifically for the “bad” times, yielding results through a cultural transformation combining high degrees of flexibility, quality, and velocity. When any leader arrives at the conclusion that they cannot afford to continue their CPI programs, the question must be asked: “Can you afford not to?”