CMMI or Lean Six Sigma: Which Comes First?

By

Your organization is getting into process improvement. Should you look at the SEI's capability maturity model integration (CMMI) first? Six Sigma first? Or both at the same time?

This dilemma has confronted many organizations over the last several years.  The situation reminds me of a session I was attending in 1984. Both W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran were present at the symposium in Scottsdale, AZ. Someone from the audience raised their hand and asked, “Should we follow Deming’s teachings or those of Juran?” Deming, in his inimitable, gruff voice responded, “Pick either…just do something.”

While the same question could arise about the use of the SEI CMMI or Lean Six Sigma, there have been some interesting case studies over the past few years surrounding the order of choice. I have spent 80% of my time over the last 15 years living and dying the SEI CMMI and its predecessor, the SW-CMM®. Consequently, I would be seemingly biased in favor the CMM / CMMI. However, I have personally been associated with 3 case studies demonstrating the benefits of looking at Lean Six Sigma first…at least a little bit first!

All three scenarios involved organizations that were well into the Lean Six Sigma expansion. There were Black Belts, Green Belts, Yellow Belts and Champions trained. All staff had some form of Lean Six Sigma orientation, at least a four hour Overview.

The three organizations were in the following industries:

(1) A medium-sized financial specialty company in the Midwest;
(2) An IT organization of a large educational supplier in the Southwest;
(3) A 120 person division of a multi-national communications vendor in the Southeast.

All had made significant inroads into Lean Six Sigma (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control, or DMAIC) before they ventured into the SEI CMM / CMMI world. Each was introduced to the CMMI via training and consulting. After about two months, a ‘mini-assessment’ (Class C Appraisal) was held. The results across the board were significantly different than the ‘average’ initial appraisal. A significant number of processes were already documented and used, as opposed to the usual blank stares when procedures / templates are requested during an initial appraisal. All three had results more typical of a second or third round of appraisals than the normal results.

Especially noticeable was the difference in the quantitative-based process areas (e.g. Measurement & Analysis at maturity level 2 and the maturity levels 4 and 5 process areas covering quantitative process management and formal continuous improvement). In most initial Class C Appraisals, we don’t even bother to look at maturity levels 4 – 5 process areas, sometimes not even maturity level 3. In all three cases, plans called for reviewing only maturity levels 2 and 3. As the Appraisals progressed, the results were so startling that the maturity level 4 – 5 process areas were also investigated and scored.