Why They Fail!, Episode #4 – “Why Capability?…” Welcome to “Why They Fail,” the podcast that dissects the downfall of continuous improvement initiatives. Your host, Kevin Clay, a Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt with over 25 years of experience and a mentor at Six Sigma Development Solutions, is here to deliver an unfiltered look at why so many continuous improvement efforts falter. We’re not sugarcoating anything; get ready for raw insights into the leadership agendas and shortsighted decisions that derail CI projects. But it’s not all doom and gloom—we’ll also unveil the surprisingly simple key to avoiding these pitfalls and building a phenomenal, sustainable data-driven improvement culture. In our last episode, we explored whether your continuous improvement program is merely a “fad diet for your business,” much like personal weight loss journeys that chase quick fixes only to “crash and burn”. We discussed the sobering statistic from Pat Bergin, President of Aerofil Technology, who noted that a staggering 96 out of 100 companies undertaking continuous improvement fail or quit within 18 months. We also delved into common pitfalls such as the “Lone Ranger” approach, where a single Green Belt is expected to “save the world” without adequate support. Other issues included “stepping in someone else’s sandbox,” leading to turf wars and demoralized belts, and the futility of “trying to solve world hunger” by assigning overly broad projects. Finally, we highlighted how continuous improvement can become leadership’s “new toy,” resulting in arbitrary projects based on personal agendas rather than data-driven needs. The core message was clear: abandon quick fixes and build a strong foundation. Today, we dive into a specific, baffling type of failure that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of continuous improvement, particularly the Six Sigma aspect of Lean Six Sigma. This episode is titled “Why do we need Capability when we have Go/No-Go Gauges? (This is one of the stupidest question I have ever heard!)”. While the intent behind this question isn’t usually malicious, it signals a larger problem in how continuous improvement, especially Six Sigma, is taught and implemented. Consider a scenario at a company that manufactures aluminum rims for automobiles, a plant seeking to replicate the success of its sister facility after a Lean Six Sigma deployment. During a performance discussion, the plant operations officer, himself a Black Belt, was asked about measuring the capability of their current process inputs. In manufacturing, wheel designs have specific dimensional attributes with Upper Specification Limits (USL), Lower Specification Limits (LSL), and a Target. Process capability is about understanding how consistently a process can produce outputs within these limits—a fundamental statistical concept in Six Sigma. His astonishing reply: “Why do we need capability when we have Go/No-Go Gauges?”. Go/No-Go Gauges are simple inspection tools that provide a binary answer: good or bad. They don’t reveal how good or bad, the extent of process variation, or if the process can consistently meet specifications over time. This COO also mentioned a dismal 62% yield, meaning many wheels had to be melted down and re-cast. This highlights an “epidemic” where Lean Six Sigma is often taught and implemented with a critical flaw. Many Lean Six Sigma “Black Belts” haven’t used statistics to solve process problems, though they are skilled in qualitative tools like Fishbone diagrams, 5-Why analysis, and Process Mapping. While these tools are essential for identifying potential root causes, they are qualitative and rely on subjective input, leading to varying results and not proving anything. The true power of Six Sigma lies in its reliance on data and statistical analysis to validate hypotheses and identify actual root c...