6-Sigma - A Common Cause of Failure

Tweet

Building on the previous post regarding the differences between lean and 6-sigma, I have recently come to the conclusion that failure to understand the differences between the two is often the cause of frustration and disappointment with the results in a lean deployment.

Conceptually, 6-sigma is easier for people to comprehend than lean.  Implementing a problem-solving methodology aimed at attacking the issues with the largest financial impact makes immediate sense to most people.  Developing a few experts in the problem-solving process and sending them around to attack the big issues and help improve company performance requires a relatively small investment and does not necessitate a major shift in the way the organization operates.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that this is not lean.  It is fairly common for an organization attempting to adopt lean to have one or more people involved in the process who drive the change with a 6-sigma mindset.  This can create a significant amount of friction and frustration between the "lean thinkers" and the "6-sigma thinkers."  And if this gap is not effectively addressed, teamwork will break down and the initiative will fail.

Among other issues, a gap in improvement philosophy will lead to disagreement in the types of problems to attack.  6-sigma thinkers will want to address only the big problems while lean thinkers will focus on creating a system where all problems, regardless of size, can be addressed.

The Signs of a Gap

Signs that a lean deployment is being driven by a 6-sigma focus include the following:

Pareto Prevalence:  The use of Pareto charts or effort-benefit formulas to select the problems to address is a sure sign of 6-sigma influence.  Creating an improvement-focused culture will not happen if you tell people to ignore the problems that a chart or formula considers small.  Also, telling a person who faces a problem everyday that it is too small to warrant attention can be extremely demotivating.

An objective of lean thinking is to attack problems as they happen.  This requires turning everybody into problem-solvers and unleashing them on the issues that prevent them from meeting target conditions.  Besides the fact that small problems, when left unchecked, often turn into large ones, continually addressing issues allows people to get better and better at problem-solving.

Lack of Leader Involvement:  When trying to create a lean culture, leaders must be actively involved in kaizen efforts.  Assigning black belts to facilitate the process enables leaders to opt-out of, rather than participate in the process.  Within a true lean environment, the higher the position is within the organization, the more adept the person is at problem-solving.  Getting to this point will not happen when leaders are allowed to delegate improvement responsibilities.

Celebrating the Big Gains:  Creating awards or financial incentives to solve the big issues is a clear message to people that the small problems are not worth the effort.  There are areas within the company that, because of the nature of the work they do, spend significantly more than other areas.  Inconsistent behavior between areas will never result in the desired shift in culture, and since the areas with lower costs will not see participation in improvement worth the effort, transformation will not occur.

Understand What You Want

The point of this and the last post is to create awareness that, despite what many people believe, lean and 6-sigma are not the same, and confusing the two will lead to disappointment with an improvement effort.  It is not easy - and it is definitely not common sense - but being clear with the vision and objectives, studying the results, and adjusting the effort is important to assure the desired transformation occurs.

Lean and 6-Sigma: Still Not the Same

Tweet

Although they have been in practice for many years and are very distinct approaches, many people continue to think of lean and 6-sigma as one in the same.  There are even some people claiming to be experts who don't understand the difference.  And the use of terms like "lean sigma," only serves to further confuse business leaders who need to understand.

To do my part to continue to educate people on the differences between lean and 6-sigma, I have listed some of the areas where the two approaches contradict one another.

Transformation:  Lean is a systems approach to business that runs so counter to traditional thinking that it virtually always requires some level of transformation.  In fact, attempting to deploy lean without transformation will result in a lot of effort with little or no improvement.  6-sigma, on the other is based on individual improvement projects and does not require major shifts in thinking or changes to the company's culture, systems, and approach to leadership.

Source of Improvement:  6-sigma uses "experts" (or black belts) to lead projects that attack problems.  In some cases, leaders do not need to be involved in addressing problems in their areas.  Lean gets everybody involved in addressing problems.  The leader of an area is the expert who is tasked with coaching and developing team members in the way to identify and attack problems.  Someone not involved in the area affected by the problem may be called in as a coach, but won't be directly involved in the effort.  [See Solutions below for more on the idea of solving problems ]

Size of Problems:  6-sigma uses a set of criteria to focus attention on the big problems.  Pareto charts are commonly used to separate the critical problems that require attention.  Lean attacks any problem  that interferes with meeting a target condition, regardless of size.  Although Pareto is used occasionally in a lean environment, people do not wait for data to be collected to prove an issue is big enough to warrant attention and are encouraged to attack problems as they occur.

Solutions:  6-sigma uses the DMAIC process (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) to "solve" problems, while lean applies PDSA cycle (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycle to develop countermeasures with the idea that, under a continuous improvement mindset, no problem is ever solved.  Some consider this as merely semantics, but it is an important part of establishing a lean mindset.  Thinking of a problem as "solved" can lead to complacency and a level of satisfaction that can kill the drive to further improve.

Learning:  6-sigma relies heavily on classroom training and certification to drive learning.  Lean involves a "just do it" attitude and places more emphasis on coaching than training.  Also, within a lean environment, the continual developing and testing of hypotheses, rather than classroom training, drives learning.  An important responsibility of leadership within a lean environment is to develop those on his or her team to think and practice PDSA thinking, where 6-sigma tends to use trainers who are outside of the operation to develop problem-solving skills.

Since lean is transformational - requiring significant shifts in systems, policies, learning, and leadership - it unlocks what W. Edwards Deming referred to as the big gains. Deming surmised that using the tools without transformation can result in no more than 3% improvement for a company.  The other 97% is locked in the company's systems, including leadership, planning, strategy, etc.

I believe that the key difference between the two practices is that 6-sigma attacks the 3%, while lean aims at the 97% (along with the 3%).  It naturally follows, however, lean is much more difficult for an organization to understand and practice.  Lean also aims at many of the traditional western business practices of which leaders can be reluctant to let go.

Whether embarking on the deployment of 6-sigma or lean, it is important to be clear on expectations.  If you're not ready to question the organization's systems and leadership, stay with 6-sigma and be happy with the 3% - which admittedly, can be quite large in financial terms. If you want the big gains, though, lean - not 6-sigma - is the way to get there.  In other words, don't expect 97% results by using a 3% solution.