Choosing an engagement

Process problem, delivery problem, or both?

Most organizations know something is wrong before they know what kind of help it needs. This page lays out the three shapes of engagement side by side so you can arrive at a conversation already knowing which one you're describing.

Discuss Your Business Challenge How We Work

Three shapes of engagement

Focused Lean Six Sigma
Project & Program Delivery
Hybrid — Improve and Deliver

The three shapes

They solve different problems. Buying the wrong one is expensive.

A process engagement asks why. A delivery engagement asks how and when. A hybrid does both because the answer cannot be installed without building something.

The process is the problem.

Focused Lean Six Sigma

A defined process is underperforming — too slow, too variable, too costly, too error-prone — and nobody can prove why. The work is diagnosis, evidence, and a controlled change to that process.

The work is the problem.

Project & Program Delivery

The direction is already decided. What's missing is disciplined delivery: scope held, dependencies surfaced, decisions forced on time, and honest status across a portfolio of moving parts.

You can't fix it without also building it.

Hybrid — Improve and Deliver

The improvement requires a system change, a new role structure, a site rollout, or a vendor. Redesign and delivery run together, each governed on its own terms, under one accountable owner.

Comparison

The same ten questions, answered three ways.

	Focused Lean Six Sigma	Project & Program Delivery	Hybrid — Improve and Deliver
The question being answered	Why is this process performing the way it is, and what change moves the number?	Can we get this delivered, in the right order, without surprises?	What has to change, and how do we install it across the operation?
Typical trigger	A metric is off and the explanations conflict. Rework, overtime, backlog, escapes, cycle time.	Multiple workstreams, hard dates, a system go-live, or a program that has lost its thread.	A transformation, an integration, a site consolidation, or a PE value-creation plan.
Primary output	A validated process change with a control plan and a re-measured baseline.	Delivered scope, a governed plan, clean decisions, and a defensible status picture.	A redesigned process that is actually running, plus the controls that hold it.
How progress is measured	Process performance against a documented baseline.	Milestones, decision throughput, risk burn-down, benefit realization.	Both — delivery milestones on the build, process measures on the outcome.
Who is mostly involved	The people who run the process, plus a finance partner for validation.	Sponsors, workstream leads, vendors, and functional owners.	Operations, delivery, IT or vendors, and the leaders accountable for the outcome.
Governance style	DMAIC gates — evidence before change.	Predictive where dates and dependencies are fixed, adaptive where the answer is being discovered.	Two operating rules in one program, reported honestly rather than blended.
Shape of the effort	Concentrated on one process or value stream. Scope-led, not calendar-led.	Ongoing through the life of the work.	Phased — diagnosis first, then build and rollout, then sustainment.
Sustainment	Owner named, control plan with limits and response actions.	Handover into the operating rhythm and benefit tracking.	Standard work, control plan, and the measure wired into an existing management review.
Choose this when	You know where it hurts but not why, and you need proof before you spend.	You know what to do and need it landed without drama.	The fix and the build are the same effort and splitting them would break it.
Don't choose this when	The real constraint is a stalled program, not process performance.	Nobody has established whether the planned change is the right one.	The problem is contained to a single process — a focused engagement is cheaper and faster.

Focused Lean Six Sigma

The question being answered: Why is this process performing the way it is, and what change moves the number?
Typical trigger: A metric is off and the explanations conflict. Rework, overtime, backlog, escapes, cycle time.
Primary output: A validated process change with a control plan and a re-measured baseline.
How progress is measured: Process performance against a documented baseline.
Who is mostly involved: The people who run the process, plus a finance partner for validation.
Governance style: DMAIC gates — evidence before change.
Shape of the effort: Concentrated on one process or value stream. Scope-led, not calendar-led.
Sustainment: Owner named, control plan with limits and response actions.
Choose this when: You know where it hurts but not why, and you need proof before you spend.
Don't choose this when: The real constraint is a stalled program, not process performance.

Project & Program Delivery

The question being answered: Can we get this delivered, in the right order, without surprises?
Typical trigger: Multiple workstreams, hard dates, a system go-live, or a program that has lost its thread.
Primary output: Delivered scope, a governed plan, clean decisions, and a defensible status picture.
How progress is measured: Milestones, decision throughput, risk burn-down, benefit realization.
Who is mostly involved: Sponsors, workstream leads, vendors, and functional owners.
Governance style: Predictive where dates and dependencies are fixed, adaptive where the answer is being discovered.
Shape of the effort: Ongoing through the life of the work.
Sustainment: Handover into the operating rhythm and benefit tracking.
Choose this when: You know what to do and need it landed without drama.
Don't choose this when: Nobody has established whether the planned change is the right one.

Hybrid — Improve and Deliver

The question being answered: What has to change, and how do we install it across the operation?
Typical trigger: A transformation, an integration, a site consolidation, or a PE value-creation plan.
Primary output: A redesigned process that is actually running, plus the controls that hold it.
How progress is measured: Both — delivery milestones on the build, process measures on the outcome.
Who is mostly involved: Operations, delivery, IT or vendors, and the leaders accountable for the outcome.
Governance style: Two operating rules in one program, reported honestly rather than blended.
Shape of the effort: Phased — diagnosis first, then build and rollout, then sustainment.
Sustainment: Standard work, control plan, and the measure wired into an existing management review.
Choose this when: The fix and the build are the same effort and splitting them would break it.
Don't choose this when: The problem is contained to a single process — a focused engagement is cheaper and faster.

Signals

What it sounds like inside the business.

If more than one column sounds familiar, that usually points to hybrid — and it is worth saying so early rather than discovering it halfway through.

Focused Lean Six Sigma

The same defect or delay keeps coming back
Overtime is structural, not seasonal
Two functions disagree about the cause and both have data
You need a business case before you fund a bigger change

Project & Program Delivery

Status is green until it isn't
Decisions sit unmade for weeks
Dependencies across teams are discovered late
Benefits were promised but nobody is tracking them

Hybrid

The improvement needs a system, vendor, or new role to exist
A change has to land across multiple sites or teams
A value-creation plan has both operational and delivery commitments
A previous transformation stalled after the pilot

If you're still unsure

You don't have to pick correctly before the first call.

Describing the symptom is enough. The shape of the engagement is a conclusion of the first conversation, not a prerequisite for it — and it is written down before any work starts.

See What We Do Explore Our Approach

Start the conversation

Let's talk about what needs to move.

A short conversation about the outcome you need, the constraint in the way, and whether we are the right partner for it.

Discuss Your Business Challenge See What We Do