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?

Lean Doesn't Have Methods for Finding a Root Cause?

From a really bad article written by a Six Sigma Black Belt: 

If you use the Lean methodology to improve a process that is plagued with frequent defects, errors, mishaps, failures, etc., that have eluded managers and engineers to the point where they just accept that there is no solution, you end up with a less desirable product because you cut corners and features to avoid the defects rather than fix them.

Six Sigma is ideal for solving hard process problems that result in defects in the process output; e.g., broken windshields on cars coming off an assembly line, customer bills calculated incorrectly, data missing off a mainframe server, food getting spoiled long before its expiration date, etc..

Lean tools and methodologies lack the rigor to determine the root cause of elusive defect problems; Six Sigma tools and methodologies are too time consuming and costly to just to improve business efficiency.

I don't know where people get this stuff. Who ever said in Lean or the Toyota Production System that you cut corners to "avoid defects" rather than fixing them?

Who said Lean doesn't help you find a root cause?

The reality is: fishbone diagrams, the "5 Whys," going to the gemba, andon cords, mistake proofing... these are all great examples of how we find and prevent defects in the Lean methodology.

Black Belts should really stick to writing about Six Sigma. There's a reason I stick to writing about Lean...