What is the right way to structure a cost reduction initiative?

Leverage CAEDENCE's Engineered Cost Reduction Approach (ECRA)™ - it addresses all aspects of planning and execution and can be easily tailored to suit your needs.
Executing an effective cost reduction initiative goes beyond simply identifying a need, communicating a dollar value, and holding workshops.
Cost reduction initiatives must start with a broader review of gap areas across the entire enterprise (considering existing and acquired sites) and definition of the future state goals. Buy-in must be secured among the key stakeholders and participants. The steps and metrics needed to ensure engagement before, and accountability beyond, the initiative kickoff must be planned.
Three stages are needed to execute a strong cost reduction program:
1) Preparation and Kickoff: Set the overarching strategy, set goals, align stakeholders and teams, and create an execution plan.
2) Site Workshops: Complete needed pre-work, create a pilot program, fine tune the initiative based on the pilot, and define a coordinated rollout plan.
3) Control: It is critical to set up an accountability plan with KPIs and owners, set periodic steering team meetings, and monitor progress.
CAEDENCE can support you every step of the way from program planning to control and accountability. Let us help manage your cost reduction initiative to achieve the optimal results for your company. Our Engineered Cost Reduction Approach (ECRA)™ addresses all aspects of planning and execution. It can be easily tailored to suit your needs.

Over the years we’ve been exposed to Six Sigma, Juran, Deming PDCA, 8D, Dale Carnegie, A3, Shainin, and more. Each technique works pretty well, and has been demonstrated many times in a wide variety of industries and circumstances. At the core they are all essentially the same!
Each approach relies on an underlying logical flow that goes like this: [a] make sure the problem is clearly defined; [b] be open to all sources of information; [c] vet the information for relevance and accuracy; [d] use the process of elimination to narrow down all possible causes to the most likely few; [e] prove which of the suspects is really the cause of the issue; [f] generate a number of potential solutions; [g] evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and risk of the potential solutions; [h] implement the winning solution(s); and [i] take steps to make sure your solution(s) don’t unravel in the future.
The differences between the paradigms resides in supplementary steps and toolkits. For example, 8D contains the important “In

Your primary role as a manager is to ensure your team’s success. Internalize this. Make sure your team members know this. Build an environment of trust and collaboration. A direct report of mine would frequently leave me out of the loop as problems escalated, preferring instead to “work harder”. It was clear that he felt uncomfortable delivering bad news to me (his boss) when things were not going according to plan. Let me tell you the rest of the story.

I was struggling to get updates from my regional project management directors. Sensing my frustration at having to constantly repeat my (apparently futile) requests to the team to provide their updates consistently, my boss suggested, “If you want something done, schedule it.” He meant that if updates are needed at a specific time, actually schedule them directly on people's calendars, making the expectation and reminder "automatic" each month, and emphasizing the importance of the updates by turning them into meetings – people tend not to show up empty handed to meetings where they're expected to present. Scheduling removed a bit of "friction" and created a sense of urgency that resulted in real progress. Amazingly, they didn’t miss any updates after that point!

One of the best bits of advice I received when I first became a manager was to “delegate a task when your team member is 70% as good at it as you are, not 99%.” Many times, people are promoted to management positions because of their strong performance as individual contributors, but then they’re shocked to learn that a whole separate set of skills is required to succeed in their new role. Delegation is high on this list of new skills. Delegation means handing off tasks for someone else to do them. A common mistake is to only hand off a task when the team member is as good as you are at it. This is a trap! While it may seem like a good idea to protect the quality of the task, it doesn’t work in practice.

Don’t be fooled by the latest fad in project management, Agile. Agile is pitched as a revolutionary method, but the fact is, it simply DOES NOT GET THE RESULTS that visual waterfall approaches do. Period.
We see team after team fail using Agile methods, for very specific reasons. Let’s look at the 6 painful TRUTHs of using Agile methods. You don't need the latest fad, you need to use the best practices to manage a project to completion.

Problem-solving methods haven’t changed in over 20 years, and some methods have been around for 30-50 years without significant improvement. CAEDENCE has released a novel improvement to problem-solving that overcomes shortfalls in existing methods.
Applicable to all structured problem-solving approaches, Visual 8D™ enables teams to execute the familiar problem-solving steps (with no additional effort), while capturing plans and progress in easy-to-follow diagrams. Visual 8D™ puts teams in the position of providing answers to management and customer questions before being asked, resulting in improved control of the situation and minimizing time wasted on extraneous actions.

Being action-oriented is a good thing, right? Well, yes and no. There's a big difference between learning and adjusting quickly ("failing fast") and wasting time and resources by "rushing off half cocked".
Executives and teams alike are eager to be (and be seen) "doing something", but they often fail to recognize the distinction between 'activity' and 'progress'. As a result, they act upon the first reasonable idea that comes along. The trouble with acting on the first reasonable idea is twofold. First, there might have been much better ideas, and second, once you start working on the first idea, you stop looking for the better ones. Outcomes are often sub-optimal – problems not solved, product not launched, etc.
Want to dramatically improve your team's odds of achieving consistently strong outcomes? Next time everyone's ready to run with the first reasonable idea, set aside just 30 minutes and challenge the group with this 3-step process.