Monday, July 10, 2017

The Six Things Wrong with the "Six Roles" of Lean Six Sigma

I received a promotional email from a company that makes money by training and certifying belts.

This infographic lists six roles... I was curious if I could find six things wrong with the diagram and the assumptions of many approaches to "Lean Six Sigma." Click on the illustration for a larger view.


For one, the emphasis is on training and projects. That's, at best, a starting point for the adoption of a new management system and an organizational culture.

Two, why do you need so many levels of belts. The only apparent difference between White and Yellow belts is that White Belts aren't allowed to participate in projects? Why would you exclude any employee's input? That sounds like an excuse to sell yet another belt for another fee.

Three, I'll emphasize that everybody should be involved in improvement (that's the Kaizen approach within Lean)... and, again, not all improvements should be considered a "project." Small "just do it" and PDSA style Kaizen improvements are small and don't require project formality.

Four, why are process issues being reported to Green Belts and Black Belts? Where is the role of the actual managers of areas in which the belts work? A better Lean approach would have direct supervisors, managers, directors, and above being made aware of problems and opportunities for improvement, not just belts.

Five, can a "Master Black Belt" really be "responsible" for implementation and culture change? That's the role of executive leaders.

Six, "champions" shouldn't just support change, they should be directly involved by setting goals and direction... and clearing obstacles along the way.

Well, I found six problems or concerns. What about you?

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Sometimes, Professors are Wrong Too

Just because you're an "adjunct professor at Georgia Institute of Technology’s Scheller School of Business" doesn't mean you can't be wrong about Lean.

The professor, who has a deep background in Six Sigma, maybe shouldn't be teaching about Lean. I'm not qualified to teach about Six Sigma, so I don't try telling people what Six Sigma is about.

I do know Lean pretty well.

As other posts on this blog point out, a statement like this is very incorrect... factually incorrect...

As written here:

"Six Sigma uses the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve and control) method to reduce defects. Lean, derived mostly from the Toyota Production System, focuses on cycle time reduction by eliminating non-value-added steps."

The implication is that Lean doesn't help reduce defects. The implication is that Six Sigma is the only way to reduce defects. That's all untrue.

See the Toyota Production System page that explains how Lean is about improving flow AND quality. Improving flow leads to better quality. And, Lean has methods (tools like error proofing and management mindsets) that very directly improve quality.

I wish Six Sigma people would stick to teaching about Six Sigma.

Would you let a physics professor teach biology? Would you "merge" the departments into something called "Physology" or "Physics Biology?"

That's my problem with Lean Sigma... the incorrect things that get said about Lean.

I'm not against Six Sigma. I agree that Lean and Six Sigma can be complementary. But not if you think Lean doesn't address defects. Visit a Toyota plant and see...
"Six Sigma uses the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve and control) method to reduce defects. Lean, derived mostly from the Toyota Production System, focuses on cycle time reduction by eliminating non-value-added steps."

The implication is that Lean doesn't help reduce defects. The implication is that Six Sigma is the only way to reduce defects. That's all untrue.

See the Toyota Production System page that explains how Lean is about improving flow AND quality. Improving flow leads to better quality. And, Lean has methods (tools like error proofing and management mindsets) that very directly improve quality.

http://www.toyota-global.com/company/vision_philosophy/toyota_production_system/
"Six Sigma uses the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve and control) method to reduce defects. Lean, derived mostly from the Toyota Production System, focuses on cycle time reduction by eliminating non-value-added steps."

The implication is that Lean doesn't help reduce defects. The implication is that Six Sigma is the only way to reduce defects. That's all untrue.

See the Toyota Production System page that explains how Lean is about improving flow AND quality. Improving flow leads to better quality. And, Lean has methods (tools like error proofing and management mindsets) that very directly improve quality.

http://www.toyota-global.com/company/vision_philosophy/toyota_production_system/

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Lean Doesn't "Sacrifice Quality"

Ah, the irony of an article that seeks to dispel "myths" about Lean Sigma then going and spreading an unfortunate myth about Lean.

See this article from Quality Mag:

10 Reasons Organizations Do Not Use Lean Six Sigma

They bust a few myths, but then they say this, unfortunately:
"By only doing Lean [and not Six Sigma] you sacrifice the benefits of quality." 
No no no no no no.

This is just factually incorrect.

Again, I'll point you to the Toyota web page for the Toyota Production System.

TPS is about flow AND quality. They go hand in hand. Better flow leads to better quality, and vice versa.

Lean and TPS have so many methods and mindsets that improve quality in very direct ways, such as:

  • Error proofing
  • Andon cords (stop the line)
  • A culture of not blaming individuals for systemic problems
Stop saying Lean alone would hurt quality. Somebody who doesn't understand Lean might go "implement Lean tools" in a way that hurts quality, but that's their fault (yes, I'll blame somebody) and not the fault of Lean.