Continuous Quality Improvement in the U.S.A. Military - Term Paper Example

Continuous Quality Improvement: An Application in the United s Military This paper examines the implementation of the next generation of quality initiatives in the United States Department of Defense. Specifically, the Continuous Process Improvement model adopted by the United States Marine Corps in 2006 and the Lean Six Sigma framework implemented by the Air Force in the same year are analyzed. Although the Defense Department has shown leadership and commitment to quality improvement in the armed forces dating back to the 1980s, the new demands placed on our forces as a result of the global war on terror have fundamentally changed the manner in which we prepare for conflict. The paper details the efforts of both the Marine Corps and the Air Force to implement systems controls aimed at improving our capability to respond to a rapidly changing external environment. Examples include linking statistical controls to performance assessment, the standardization of procedures in support of the combat mission, a renewed emphasis on training in the concepts of knowledge management and establishing quantitative metrics that are benchmarked across all four of the major combat departments. The ability to respond quickly in a combat ready manner to multiple threats around the world is what the new quality initiatives are designed to achieve. Clearly, the “old culture” of war is no longer in the national security interests of the United States. Next generation quality models such as CPI/LSS are clearly the way of the future if the United States military is to remain the best quality force in the world. Introduction The United States military has long been known for its innovative and pioneering work in a number of areas. In fact, many of the best business practices that are taken for granted by today’s business managers had their origins in our military organizations. The United States Armed Forces is built upon a tradition of quality in the forces that it trains for combat and in the weapons systems that it deploys in protecting our national security interests around the globe. This paper argues that the Continuous Process Improvement/Lean Six Sigma (CPI/LSS) policy implemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2006, was critical in reorienting the United States military in addressing a new type of war—the global war on terrorism. The reality is that the military was ill prepared to deal with this new threat because its systems were designed to fight conventional wars and were not adaptable to the rapidly changing environment of global terrorism. As an employee in the defense contracting industry, I have experienced first hand the positive changes that have come about at a result of the implementation of CPI/LSS. The Military Application of Total Quality Management The Department of Defense has been a leader in incorporating quality improvement initiatives throughout all military departments since the 1980s. One of the most noteworthy contributions to both the literature and the practice of improving quality in military organizations came with the work of W. Edwards Deming. Deming developed 14 principles in achieving Total Quality Management within organizations. Four of these principles formed the basis for the major components of TQM that were implemented by DoD. The four principles are: there is a direct correlation between employee training and product quality. quality must be quantified and statistically assessed early in the production process (upstream) rather than at the end of the production cycle when it is too late to make quality improvements (downstream). preventing variability is the key to producing high quality output. the TQM philosophy must be systemic, pervading the organization from senior management through to the rank and file (Applegate, 1991). Despite some setbacks, TQM did force military departments to quantify quality improvements based on agreed upon performance standards and assessment strategies. The TQM-based systems functioned quite well in supporting our military efforts in both Desert Storm and in the Bosnian conflict. September, 11, 2001, however, dictated a fundamental change in the way that military readiness was viewed and the implementation of CPI/LSS was part of the DoD’s response to the changing military landscape. The Next Generation of Quality Improvement Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, captured the essence of the continuous quality improvement directive in a 2008 memorandum where he notes that the DoD policy seeks to “institutionalize CPI/LSS as one of the primary approaches to assessing and improving efficiency and effectiveness of DoD processes in support of the Department’s national defense mission”(DoD 5010.42). At the heart of this new generation of quality improvement is a philosophy premised upon the flexibility to meet the rapid changes in military mission envisioned for the 21st Century. The key word here is flexibility. Each of the four major branches of the military—Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps—was given considerable latitude in the manner in which CPI/LSS was to be implemented. The Marine Corps chose the Continuous Process Improvement approach, while the other three departments selected a version of the Six Sigma organizational model that had become well known for its results at private sector corporations such as Motorola and General Electric. Each of these company websites has a link to their respective Six Sigma quality initiatives (www.ge.com; www.motorla.com). Next Generation Quality Improvement: Examples from the Air Force and Marine Corps The Air Force Six Sigma model and the Marine Corps Continuous Process Improvement model are examined below. The Navy and Army approaches mirror closely the model used by the Air Force and Marine Corps. In 2006, the Secretary of the Air Force announced a new process for the development and deployment of smart weapons systems. Modeled after Six Sigma, Secretary Wynn described Smart Operations 21 as the next generation of quality control in the military environment. “The name came from a convocation of senior operations in the field who thought that we could continue our journey into higher quality and better performance”, Wynn noted. The Sigma Six Operations 21 approach has broad applicability throughout Air Force operations including surveillance and reconnaissance, satellite and cyberspace operations, smart weapon deployment and airfield operations (AFSO 21). The primary goal articulated by the Secretary of Defense is that Air Force Smart Operations 21 (AFSO 21) will become what he calls the “new culture” for the United States Air Force. The Secretary acknowledges that cultural change will be difficult but he adds that the long term success of the Air Force is dependent on AFSO 21’s successful implementation. The Air Force has developed a detailed handbook that articulates the vision and strategy for AFSO 21’s implementation. The Continuous Process Improvement Guidebook (2006) is required reading for all officers assigned to the operational areas covered under AFSO 21. The Guidebook really emphasizes achieving systems control through the scientific use of hard data for decision making. AFSO 21 refers to this as “management by fact.” An example is the Air Force use of value stream mapping to assess the process of product improvement in the delivery of smart weapons systems. All officers as well as civilian leaders throughout the Air Force are being trained to foster an environment that emphasizes critical thinking and problem solving utilizing what AFSO 21 refers to as “fact-based decision making.” AFSO 21 requires that the Air Force place an emphasis a long term commitment to quality improvement even if that entails short term sacrifices to improve quality. As a result, the Air Force has mothballed or has plans to mothball several of its operations that have been identified as incompatible with the new Six Sigma models coming out of the AFSO 21 plan. The AFSO 21 plan is designed to strategically redirect the Air Force to face a prolonged global war on terrorism. This is no small task as the Air Force, and the entire U.S. military for that matter, have been conditioned to respond to conventional threats. This traditional mission is now both obsolete and reactive. The AFSO 21 approach is designed to be proactive and responsive to emerging global military and national security threats. AFSO 21 established a series of Executive Councils staffed by the most senior officers in the particular area of responsibility. The Councils oversee the implementation and evaluation of the AFSO 21 initiatives in their respective jurisdictions. Part of the system control metric is to consistently link rewards and sanctions based solely on statistically quantifiable changes in quality established by predetermined quality benchmarks (improvement or failure). AFSO 21 also incorporates the Six Sigma control of process standardization. If the most effective strategy for a particular wartime response can be quantified, then soldiers and contractors can be trained in the one best way to accomplish the required tasks. This approach controls for the considerable variation in training and application that was observed under the former system. The Air Force has implemented some sweeping changes in the manner in which it applies organizational controls to achieve improvements in quality. One senior Air Force officer summed it up best when he said that that traditional approach within the Air Force was “activity oriented” while the AFSO 21 approach is “results oriented.” The United States Marine Corps elected to implement the Continuous Process Improvement model. In its Guidebook: United States Marine Corps Continuous Process Improvement, (1986) the Corps focuses on four primary control sub-systems: all activity must be linked to the strategic vision/mission statistical metrics will be developed to measure quality and performance knowledge management strategies will be used in training and development of military and non-military personnel CPI will be integrated into the culture of the corps The Corps CPI process is designed to focus primarily on mission support protocols because this is where major efficiencies can be gained in terms of quality. If the mission support operations fail to achieve the design metrics, the combat mission will be seriously affected and this may result in the needless loss of lives and equipment. The specific mission support components that come under the CPI directive include communications, systems integration, personnel training, maintenance support, virtual combat training systems, advanced tactical data delivery systems, logistics support and global asset tracking systems (USMC Guidebook, 2006). The implementation of CPI has caused some fundamental changes in the way that the USMC plans, implements and supports its mission. My personal observations indicate that the last two sub-system controls have been the most difficult to sell to those who have made a life of being in the Marine Corps. Soldiers and civilians resist any attempt to change the culture of the Corps and quite frankly, this has been a tough sell. Knowledge management requires Marines to adopt a new philosophy; one that requires innovative thinking, the ability to accept change and respond to it and the capability to challenge assumptions. In the language of knowledge management, it requires them to “learn” and to “unlearn.” (Bellinger, 2004). This has come as quite a culture shock, especially for some of the older, more traditional personnel. They are used to the “old culture” where you were told what to do and you certainly never challenged the assumptions of your superiors. I have also observed that this effort on the part of senior leadership to actually engage team members in challenging old Corps assumptions has lead to what I would describe as a different kind of team work. People seem to be more motivated because they believe that their opinions and perspectives matter. Groups of employees appear to feel empowered to contribute to the discussion concerning continuous quality improvement. They may find new pride in their work when they realize that they are an important part of a team directed toward the same organizational outcome—quality improvement. It seems to me that this may lead to improved employee morale, increased job satisfaction and possibly even a reduction in personnel-related problems. Concluding Comments and Personal Reflection This paper presented an argument in support of the next generation quality improvement initiatives recently adopted by the United States Department of Defense. These strategies, which are based on the implementation of organizational controls, are designed to prepare the military to address the new type of conflict that global terrorism brings. The old culture of warfare is no longer effective. The class and this paper taught me a great deal about quality improvement strategies in organizations and the need for managers to utilize a variety of tools available to them to constantly challenge management assumptions and to work toward improving organizational quality. It became pretty clear that knowledge and applications of system controls is paramount to success in any organization, especially the U.S. Department of Defense. I cannot imagine how any mid or senior level manager in an organization today can be successful without some knowledge, at least, of how quantitative tools can be utilized to manage the complexities that go along with competing in a global economy. I agree with DoD that the old military model was simply not designed to deal with the realities of the new global threats that face the United States. If quality improvement initiatives such as CPI/LSS can help us develop better methods of detecting threats, if our new weapons systems are more reliable and if our military personnel are better trained and equipped to respond to these emerging challenges, then the time and investment will yield positive results for all of us. References Air Force Smart Operation 21. (2006). Washington, D.C.: The United States Air Force. Applegate, Carolyn, L. (1991). Highlights of Total Quality Management in the Department of Defense: Lessons Learned, Quality Measurements and Innovative Practices. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Naval Post Graduate School. September 26. Retrieved May 19, 2010 from http://www.oai.dtic.mil Bellinger, Gene. (2004). Knowledge Management—Emerging Perspectives. Retrieved May 19, 2010 from http://www.systems-thinking.org. Butler, Glen and Pestorious, Michael J. Ideas for Using Lean Six Sigma in the Marine Corps. Retrieved May 18, 2010 from http://www.isixsigma.comContinuous Process Improvement Guidebook. (2006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. Department of Defense Directive 5010.42 Retrieved May 19, 2010 from http://www.defense.gov. Defense documents related to Continuous Process Improvement in the Marine Corps are available at http://www.marines.com Defense documents related to Lean Six Sigma in the Air Force are available at http://www.airforce.com Information on General Electric’s Six Sigma program is available at http://www.ge.com Guidebook: United States Marine Corps Continuous Process Improvement. (2006). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. Information on Motorola’s Six Sigma program is available at http://www.mu.motorola.com Read More