People will see my comments floating around the Internet on the subject of Lean Six Sigma. I am not an expert and probably take too much liberty in the application of them to even proceed but it was important to me to post my view.
There will always be a strong debate between Lean and Six Sigma people about using the 2 terms jointly. I am not positive of the lineage of it but I believe Michael George at the time of the George Group (later to be Accenture) coined the term. I assume he viewed the two methodologies as compatible and more effective in conjunction with each other versus separately. I am not even sure that many (Case in point being that many of today’s “Lean” consultants were trained as Lean Six Sigma Black Belts) disagreed at the time except for the very traditional Lean stalwarts.
Dr. Mikel Harry, credited as one of the founders of Six Sigma states that Six Sigma is not a culture and was developed as a quality tool to gain breakthrough performance for an organization. I adhere to that statement and think Six Sigma offers great opportunities for an organization and provides a very precise and workable structure in achieving this. I am not against the hierarchy of belts and the formalities of DMAIC, DFSS, etc. Many organizations need this type of structure to be successful. I am avid defender of Six Sigma in the Lean circles many times to the chagrin of others.
Lean was developed by the MIT group under Dr. James Womack from a study of automotive companies and more specifically the Toyota Production System. Its approach is based on continuous improvement with a direct correlation to PDCA and Dr. Deming’s philosophies. Lean made its first inroads in many companies and gains in popularities (IMHO) because of the ease of entry into the methodology. Removing waste and improving flow was Lean’s mantra in the 90’s and the tools of 5s and Value Stream Mapping soared in popularity. However, as Lean continued developing tools of A3, Hoshin and Standard Work became common place. But even more so, the culture of PDCA and the spirit of Kaizen started to take hold.
Six Sigma was the methodology of choice for many manufacturers as a result of the significant strides that GE and Motorola had made. Later, Lean seemed to gain and Six Sigma wane in popularity. Lean became the path to a customer as an enabler of some quick wins. You could then take the deep dive with Six Sigma when you wanted to get “serious”. As Lean continued to steamroll and Six Sigma still continued with somewhat lackluster performance many organizations and consultants dropped the attachment to Six Sigma and became “Lean”. Popularity does create a crowd. This may not be an entirely accurate description but it serves as a basis for my views and the following comments.
What makes Lean Six Sigma work? When you first start using any methodology, you are typically introduced through the tools. Using Lean initially versus Six Sigma makes perfect sense, it is an easier introduction. And why reduce variability on non-value activities? But sooner or later you get to the fork in the road. One path says Six Sigma and the other path is this thing they call culture (Lean). So do you want to take the deep dive with a breakthrough structured approach (still has a steep incline) or do you want to try and instill a culture of empowerment. There is not a right or wrong answer. You can take either. Where I disagree, is that you can take both.
Six Sigma has always been about structure and tools. It is very, very good and does an outstanding job when applied properly. In Six Sigma thinking, you can use Lean tools initially and get to 95%. To finish the job, you use Six Sigma. And as a result, Lean Six Sigma was developed. If your organization grew out of the Motorola and G.E. world it seems like a perfect fit.
If you adopt the Lean mentality and the spirit of Kaizen (continuous improvement is not an event) you become immersed in the culture of Lean, as Dr. Balle wonderfully described in the Zen Story about the mountain. Summed up in the blog post: Lean Tools and Culture as it Relates to Zen
Have you ever played yourself in a game? On a basketball court or even a simple game of checkers, sooner or later you have to pick a side to win. It is inevitable. This is the ultimate wedge between the two methodologies and can simply be stated. Six Sigma is a structured methodology and Lean is a cultural driven by a learn by doing approach. That is not to say that Six Sigma does not have its prototyping options and that Lean is not without statistical control (it did evolve from Deming). But it is saying that both are two completely different paths that you must choose between.
If you take the path of and see Lean as Lean, Six Sigma does not make sense and is not a compatible technology. There is a significant culture difference and approach. If you take the path of Six Sigma, you view Lean as only a set of tools nothing more and why not, Lean has a great toolbox. If you take the path of Lean you still can be just as efficient and just as effective as Six Sigma, you just do it differently.
I make no qualms about stating that I believe and follow a Lean philosophy. Lean works in my world much better. PDCA which is basically form a hypothesis, test it and adjust is what sales and marketing is all about.
I support the ideas of Lean and Six Sigma without hesitation. What I have trouble understanding is how you can be philosophically aligned in Lean thinking and practice Six Sigma. So I believe you must ask yourself; Which fork in the road do you take?
Related Information:
Profound knowledge for Lean Marketing
Lean Sales and Marketing Cycles are Knowledge Building Tactics
Lean is not a revolution, Lean is solve one thing and prove one thing!
Continuous Improvement Sales and Marketing Toolset
In my first year as a naive consultant learning kaizen and TQC and the Toyota Production System, I attended the 1989 Juran conference in Atlanta. The aging but eloquent Juran himself was a wonderfully gracious presenter, and Donald Berwick was already telling his awful but accurate tales of quality and safety lapses in the best American hospitals. But the quote I remember most was from a Motorola vice-president, and it was when Motorola was roaring, and implementing six sigma before anyone else — well, anyone else in North America. That VP said that “if we didn’t have the Japanese [competing so effectively], we would have had to invent them!”
Six Sigma came out of Motorola’s desire to drive to statistical parts per million, the zero or near-zero defects that their Japanese competitors were already achieving. Motorola applied this to everything. The next year I toured a Motorola facility outside Toronto, where they were genuinely trying to figure out what six sigma, and therefore zero defects, meant in HR for hiring.
So Six Sigma was a North American adaptation of zero defects Japanese production. And the term “lean” itself was coined by a US manager at NUMMI around the same time. There have parallel and often overlapping tracks as organizations tried to change using Six Sigma or Lean or their often watered-down version of 6S or Lean.
But let’s look at results. How is Motorola doing now? How are GE, Washington Mutual, Sun Microsystems or other companies that adapted 6S doing? And how are Honda, Canon, or Toyota doing? My general take is those that stuck with a fully Lean approach are lasting and often thriving, regardless of economic cycles and even tsunamis. But a bigger, far more objective study would be helpful. Because as you point out, the debate may not be as important as which road you take, and, I would add, whether you stay on that road long enough to see that it’s a humbling and unending journey of improvement.
That summary hits the nail squarely on the head Tom. This piece of the article sums it up for me, “In Six Sigma thinking, you can use Lean tools initially and get to 95%. To finish the job, you use Six Sigma.”
When you fully embrace the Lean Philosophy you never finish the job; it’s this striving for perfection that elevates it to more than just a set of tools.
Lean also strives to involve everybody and is inclusive whereas SixSigma involves the creation of experts and is therefore exclusive.
I am schooled in both methods and have used both successfully but the best outcome is when SixSigma is applied as a complex problem solving tool as part of a lean transformation.
Your observations are greatly appreciated and your last line is particularly insightful. My debate is not deciding one over the other it is about the journey you decide to take.
The blog post was actually written in response to the overall Six Sigma community viewing Lean as a methodology for only waste reduction and flow. I have always differed with that viewpoint and the more I have come to understand Lean, the more my differences have widen.
Tom, you are absolutely correct though, it is about the journey.
Thanks for the comments.
I think Six Sigma made a bad choice in trying to widen and become more inclusive by branding itself with Lean. They choose to widen their circle of influence by becoming Lean Six Sigma but their journey was always about creating a Six Sigma structure.
When I took Lean Six Sigma Courses I looked at several institutions,
online and offline. It was funny that most of the courses hardly
included Lean in the curriculum. When they did, it was a brief outline
to discuss 5S. The training process mimics most of the thinking in the
Six Sigma world it seems.
Six Sigma was designed to be a breakthrough problem solving methodology backed by statistical data. Why they did not champion what it was meant for, I will never understand.