How many times have you heard, “Lean is in and Six Sigma is out” from a colleague? The funny thing about this is that I used to hear the same thing 23 years ago. Only then it was, “Lean is in, and quality improvement teams are out.” Little has changed since then. Everyone is looking for a simple answer to cost reduction and quality improvement. My biggest concern, and it should be yours, is that both are needed, not one or the other. It is not about which came first, or which is better or even easier. It is about what problem your organization is facing today. Do you have customer dissatisfaction, product or service complaints, defects, high cost of failure? Or are you trying to improve speed and throughput, and reduce cost of waste? These are the questions one needs to ask before arguing about whether to use lean or Six Sigma.
…
Comments
lean is customer focused
First off, I agree that Lean and Six Sigma can work well in concert. I believe they are different, yet related, methodologies (as opposed to being a blurred-together "lean six sigma" or "lean sigma."
In your introduction, you talk about how Six Sigma is customer focused, implying that Lean is not.
Maybe I read you wrong, but I couldn't disagree with that more.
Lean is, by its definition and use at Toyota, extremely customer focused. Jim Womack and others say value is defined by the customer.
Six Sigma often gets turned on its head and becomes the internal cost-cutting system, instead of the customer-focused quality improvement approach that it should be.
I'm also, frankly, tired of the misinformation about Lean only focusing on efficiency, as you state here.
Look at Toyota - they clearly emphasize that the dual pillars of TPS/Lean are flow AND quality:
http://www.toyota-global.com/company/vision_philosophy/toyota_productio…
It's common misinformation from Six Sigma consultants to say you need Six Sigma for quality. Both Lean and Six Sigma should be focused on overall effectiveness, which includes quality AND flow which leads to lower cost.
Lean vs. Six Sigma v.s ....
To me it seems all the discussion about methodologies is akin to choosing a tool from a toolbox. Confounding matters is the large push from consultants that "rebrand" the methodology (rename the tool) so that they can "add value".
At its basic function, a tool has it's best use when used for it's intended purpose. When used for another purpose, the results are lackluster at best. The proverb of "if the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails" comes to mind.
For "Lean", I have long held the view that "lean = the ruthless elimination of waste" and "Six Sigma = the systematic elimination of variation". So If I have a customer or business issue that has "waste" as a root cause (or problem) I would take out my "Lean" toolbox and start addressing the issue. If I have a variation issue (a waste by the way....so in my limited view of the world...one drawer in my "lean" tool box!), I go to my "Six Sigma" tools and fix my problem.
This thinking holds for all of the methodologies I have come across. By treating any new concept as a new tool in my box, I gain flexibility, variety, and ability to react to problems that arise. Another benefit is I get to see "new" tools that are simply "rebranded" older tools. This helps keep my box manageable and I don't get caught up in trends that look to be different ("look and feel" of improvement) and can continue to concentrate on improving the customer experience, delighting customers with quality, exceeding delivery expectations while maximizing return to the company (keep the heart and soul intact!)
just rantings from a farmer/woodworker turned engineer working in and on businesses for 20+ years.....
Interesting perspective upon tools
Here is a short video I made all about the danger of tools
http://www.thesystemsthinkingreview.co.uk/index.php?pg=18&backto=1&utwkstoryid=322
I hope that you enjoy it
Spam
Way to spam with an irrelevant and self-promotional video.
Spam
Spam? Or a highly relevant comments about tools which is what RAJONSON is writing about
QUOTE At its basic function, a tool has it's best use when used for it's intended purpose. When used for another purpose, the results are lackluster at best. The proverb of "if the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails" comes to mind END QUOTE
May have missed the point
Hi Mark,
I've read Joe's article a couple of times after reading your comment and I think I agree with your statement "Maybe I read you wrong..." I think you did.
What I took away from Joe's article is that lean and Six Sigma both work toward the same thing... customer satisfaction. Whether it is through the use of lean tools or Six Sigma tools (and frankly, isn't there a whole lot of blurring between the tool sets?) the goal in the end is to produce a product or service that meets the customer's needs. I agree with Joe and commenters BUSINESS901 and RAJOHNSON that both skill sets and methodologies are needed. I do agree that for a while, a long time ago, there was this distinction drawn between lean and Six Sigma with lean being more the efficiency thing. But from my vantage point, that idea has been long gone for at least 5 to 10 years and no current consultant (including the folks at Juran Institute, I'm sure) see one or the other as more customer focused, just different tools to the same end.
Remember "transactional lean?" The term has been around for eons (well... eons in quality-management-jargon years anyway). Rath and Strong described transactional lean as "[helping] organizations eliminate waste and focus on understanding 'value' from the standpoint of the customer." So... the idea of lean as a means to creating customer value has been around a long time and is pretty widely embraced today.
An observation: Lean and Six Sigma seem to be almost always used together (lean Six Sigma) to the point that I'm not sure many lay persons -- consultants excepted :-) --would recognize what the two terms would mean if taken alone.
The Odd Couple - Lean and Six Sigma
Starting out the discussion of it is about the problem that you are having today (not taken literally) is more important than the methodology that you choose to use is spot on. It is about what is need and what makes sense for your business problem. Certain companies because of their culture or makeup will adapt to certain methodologies easier. It is the company culture that chooses the tool. It cannot be forced upon a company. When someone declares we are going to be Lean, that scares me. I much prefer them to start with the tools of Lean and apply them to certain projects or problems. If it flourishes leave it grow and if it gains momentum feed it. Continuous Improvement is a good thing.
However, Joe I think you do a dis-service to both Lean and Six Sigma by defining them and limiting them to a brand as you understand it. I also think @RAJohnson does that by basically limiting a tool once he puts it in his toolbox. Sort of defeating the purpose of continuous improvement. However, I agree that every methodologies tries to develop itself into a culture which I have never understood.
Toyota may have always understood what Lean was and Motorola/GE may have understood Six Sigma. It seems like such an “Odd Couple” that the rest of us have married the two together in the Lean Six Sigma world. Where the culture of Toyota explained as Lean regretfully became branded as waste reduction. The methodology of Six Sigma became branded as variation reduction. Both branding attempts allowed for ease of understanding and were significant contributors to aiding the brand development in the 90's. Without this, they may not be alive today. However, this is not the “brand” as they are today.
I agree with @MGraban when he questions Joe saying Lean is not as customer focused as Six Sigma. Lean is the most customer focused of all the methodologies that I am familiar with and because of it is the one that has been adapted by Agile and the "Lean Software" communities because the other methodologies don't work for them. The reason being is that Lean adapts to handling uncertainty and/or knowledge work better than the others. For example, Scrum and Kanban the two most prevalent tools of the software community are directly from Lean or TPS teachings.
Six Sigma and Lean share many of the same tools. But they are extremely different. One embraces uncertainty and the other despises it. For example, I believe Six Sigma tools can be very useful in defining and providing structure in a marketing environment. But putting those tools to practice in the everyday sales cycle would be a disaster. So which is more customer focused? The one that is doing or the one that is observing? An “Odd Couple” indeed.
Did I really read it wrong?
Joe said Six Sigma was customer focused and lean "is typically an internally focused means of cost reduction."
He should be stating this as his opinion as opposed to being a statement of fact.
True... but
Mark,
True. However, the article also stated that "One key component of being lean is the need to create 'value' as seen from the eyes of the customers. The operational definition of value is the benefit the customer gains from using the product or service. Value is created by the customer."
So, put your observation and my observation together and what you get... I think... in my perhaps naive opinion... is lean is involved in both efficiency and creating value as viewed from the customer (as opposed to just internal efficiencies). I am pretty sure that is what the article is saying. Otherwise, I think Joe would simply have made it all one sided--all efficiency. See my point? Six Sigma and lean both have the same goal. Perhaps Joe himself will weigh in on this.
Add new comment