Copyrighted 2006 Lean Manufacturing Consortium

LEAN VS SIX SIGMA

IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO?

Through my various travels and discussions with various managers, business leaders and
Lean/Sigma Practitioners, there is a real effort by both Lean Manufacturing and 6 Sigma
Belt advocates to differentiate themselves from each other. This battle and drive for
separation and distinction has been building slowly over the past few years, until today
where it has become a crescendo. Battle lines have been drawn in the sand and the battle
for which approach is “better” seems inevitable.

While I am a Certified Lean Specialist and more closely identify with the Lean
techniques/philosophies (when asked), an analysis finds the differences between Lean
and 6 Sigma not to be as significant as some people are trying to convince us of.
Proponents from both sides try to present a case for differentiation and at times,
superiority. In reality, the differences between Lean and 6 Sigma are smaller than is often
readily admitted. The similarities between Lean and 6 Sigma are many and far outweigh
any differences.

While there are some distinctions between Lean and 6 Sigma in regards to the specific
tools and techniques that are used, this article is going to focus on the issue of what is
behind this drive for separation and supremacy. We will also address what effects this
battle is having on both Lean and 6 Sigma fields and how it affects practitioners in both
fields, and ultimately, their organizations.

Is there really a difference of any significance between Lean and 6 Sigma? If you ask die-
hard proponents from each discipline, you will get a definitive “Yes”. Lean and 6 Sigma
advocates often go to great measures to explain why their approach is “better” than the
other. Lean supporters will say if you want to improve, really improve, you must use
Lean. At the same time 6 Sigma’s maintain that their approach is the better way to
improved organizational performance. I have recently read comments on several
Network sites where Lean supporters strongly discouraged having a 6 Sigma Belt lead an
organizational Lean initiative, citing the philosophical and technical tools differences
between the two. Yet these same Lean Advocates had no problem saying that a trained
Lean implementer could successfully lead a 6 Sigma program.

Just like many organizational initiatives before them, Lean and 6 Sigma will have to tread
the fine line between losing sight of the primary reason these philosophies came into
being (and staying true to those values and reasons) and the side where both disciplines
deteriorate into becoming beauracracies interested in maintaining a specialization and
false air of superiority over other techniques. Just like TQM, Business Process Re-
Engineering and Quality Circles have become out-of-date, Lean and 6 Sigma must
reevaluate their positions and unite toward the achieving the common goals they are both
are trying to attain– improved and continuous organizational performance results, based
Copyrighted 2006 Lean Manufacturing Consortium

on factual decision-making, customer satisfaction, employee involvement, and improved

processes.

“The TQM Movement did not fall out of favor because of any
inherent flaws or failures. The initiatives that have become
fashionable today (Lean and 6 Sigma) are in danger of
eventually suffering the same fate as TQM– if these
practitioners lose sight of the goals that made them successful
they will evolve into becoming the very thing they replaced.

LEAN AND 6 SIGMA-

ARE THEY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OF EACH OTHER?

An analysis of Lean and 6 Sigma must take into account the basic goals and values that
these systems are trying to achieve. If the end result (goal) is different -then perhaps the
two systems are unique and distinctive. If the values (philosophies; tools and techniques)
are different, then again, perhaps the two systems need to differentiate themselves.

However, if the goals and values are similar or the differences are small, then the two
systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. Trying to create a situation
where one is “better” or “superior” then the other is then due to some other reason or
factor.

Systems must continually evolve if they are to survive. New techniques and tools are
developed, often times based on the specific needs of an organization searching for
improved competitiveness and performance, and not because of a general industry need.
Only after a specific approach is successful and achieves media and industry recognition
does it then become the “newest fad”. 6 Sigma’s success and usefulness came to light
after GE embraced the discipline and reinvented their organization. Likewise, the Toyota
Production System (TPS/Lean) remained in relative obscurity until the energy crisis of
1974 caused significant turmoil in the automotive industry, that others began to take
notice.

The Toyota Production System and 6 Sigma are the result of evolution in seeking
continuous improvement and building on what came before. Both systems have their
philosophical origins that can be traced back to Frederick Taylor; the Gilbreaths; Henry
Ford; Alan Morgenson (Father of Work Simplification); Value-Analysis of the Industrial
Engineering arena; Deming and Juran.

Ohno and Shingo both credit the above with giving them an understanding of how to
build their system of manufacturing and organizational performance. 6 Sigma developers
also have much in common with statistical analysis (SPC); TQM; TPS and other
approaches. Both systems are modifications to preceding philosophy (s).
Copyrighted 2006 Lean Manufacturing Consortium

Persons, who have been in the continuous improvement movement for the last 20 years,
can often point to having embraced Quality Circles; Business Process Re-Engineering;
Toyota Production System (or at least some part of each system) as they strived to
reinvent manufacturing and organizational performance. As time progressed, the real
innovators have discovered that there are tools and techniques in each discipline that can
be made successful in particular situations. Continuous improvement does not require a
“cookie cutter’ approach. While adherence to guiding principles and core values are
critical, the specific tools and techniques that are used must be individualized to some
extent in each organization. No system will be able to achieve 100% success rate, or
anything close. Advocates in each discipline cite the fact that almost two-thirds of
organizations that undertake an initiative, end up failing or being discarded within two
years. This failure rate has remained relatively consistent over the past two decades and
will most likely continue in the future.

The factors that make Lean successful are the same things that will make 6 Sigma
succeed. The factors that cause failure will equally impact a Lean or 6 Sigma program.
While some of the tools are different, both programs’ success is predicated on the
contingent people systems, change in work flow/processes and not totally on the
technical aspects of the specific approach. We must not forget that effective change is
predicated more on the associated changes in people systems and the “soft” side of
management than it is on the technical side (change). Studies have shown that
organizations that concentrated primarily on the technical tools, techniques and
procedures of change had a significantly lower rate of success than those organizations
that understood the need to change the “soft side” along with the use of hard
tools/technical.

6 Sigma and Lean Manufacturing are not mutually exclusive. Rather we should look at
each system for what it can offer in a comprehensive arsenal of tools and techniques that
will achieve what both systems are striving to attain– improved organizational
performance

“”Limited Factor of Implementation is a constant. No matter what

industry or size organization, the success rate with a particular
approach will be limited. The Limited Factor of Implementation simply
states that for any improvement program (change) that is undertaken
only @12% will ever achieve full success. So no matter what program
is embraced only a minority will see the significant results it was
seeking. This is why companies try one approach and most of them
end up discarding the program, and try the next “new program” tbat is
hailed. No single approach will work for everyone”.
Daniel Stoelb, Lean Manufacturing Consortium
Copyrighted 2006 Lean Manufacturing Consortium

“It is not obstacles that prevent success. Rather, it is the reaction to confronting an
obstacle that separates the successful person from the failure”.

The Limited Factor Of Implementation is a concept that tries to explain why

implementation of any specific program will be limited in its application and success. A
constant statistic shows any specific program (Lean/ TOC/6 Sigma/TQM) all have had
their heyday as the next tool to attain organizational improvement/change. Yet, after
some point of time, each program has encountered a “souring” or disenchantment with @
2/3’rds of the organizations that undertook the program, discarding it and searching for a
new program.

The Limited Factor of Implementation states that only @12% of organizations that
undertake a specific program will ultimately achieve the full success/results from that
program. The following process is used to arrive at the Limited Factor of
Implementation:

(1) Out of 100 companies that are presented the information of any program, 1/2 of those
(50%) will not be interested in applying the program, since they see no value to their
organization.

(2) Out of the remaining 50%, one half will experiment with the program and decide not
to use it, while the other half will become interested about implementing the program.

(3) Out of the 25% that decide to implement the program, 1/2 of these companies will
achieve limited success with the program, and at some point in time, will look for the
“next program” to continue moving forward.

(4) The other 1/2 (of the 25% group that implements the program) will remain
persistent and achieve the full benefits and success with the program.

So through the change process only @12% will have the persistence, stamina,
leadership and ability to fully implement any specific program and achieve significant
organizational performance results. This explains why “new” programs are being touted
and embraced constantly. The customer’s in this case (organizations who buy-into a
program”) either fail to see how the specific program can help them, or they use the
program but drop it before achieving full success.

Out of the many companies in the world, if we look at a specific program, Lean/6
Sigma/TOC etc, only a minority will ever achieve the ultimate benefits and successes
with a program. This has implications not only for organizations looking to find the
Copyrighted 2006 Lean Manufacturing Consortium

system/program that will work for them, but also for the providers/trainers/consultants
who are “selling’ a specific program.

The Limited Factor of Implementation is not meant to denigrate or demean the

effectiveness of any single program, or promote any single program over another. Rather,
the Limited Factor of Implementation is meant to help companies and providers
understand that any program will ultimately be truly successful in a small percentage of
cases.

The Limited Factor of Implementation also explains why we see the continuing rise
and fall of various disciplines (Quality Circle; TQM; TOC; Reengineering to name a
few) and every few years a “new "program is developed that touts it as the answer for
all organizations, all industries. It is not because one specific program doesn’t work,
but rather, because the percentage of success will be low with any specific approach.

An analysis of general industries does show that while there are many companies that
profess to becoming/learning to be Lean or 6 Sigma, in reality, the Limited Factor of
Implementation has not been reached in either case. Others currently on the journey will
fall by the wayside and look for the next “Holy Grail”.

Let’s not forget that 12% of the World’s and US business is a significant number and that
neither Lean or 6 Sigma is at a point of reaching this level of successful implementation
today. So the Lean and 6 Sigma disciplines still have a lot of room to grow. But we
should not forget that the number of organizations that successfully implement either
program will fall short of a majority of businesses

SO WHERE DOES THIS ALL LEAD TO?

From our discussion thus far, the following conclusions can be made:

• Lean and Six Sigma are not so different as it is commonly thought or proclaimed by
practitioners from both disciplines.
• While the terminology is somewhat different between the two approaches, the end
results are really the same.
• Each approach uses factual problem solving, root cause analysis, and a structured
process of problem resolution.
• Associates and Managers have direct responsibility and accountability in both
approaches.
• Both are processes that strive to change the entire organization, not just a single
aspect or function in the business.
Copyrighted 2006 Lean Manufacturing Consortium

• Both approaches were established to focus on improving a specific company in

finding an approach that would distinguish them from their competition and propel
them to world-class performance and not initially to meet a general industry need.
• The current “battle” between Lean and 6 Sigma is a contrived wall being built as a
means to separate Lean and 6 Sigma, rather than unite the best of both approaches
into a more comprehensive system.
• Only about 12% of the organizations that undertake either Lean, 6 Sigma will achieve
significant success and organizational transformation.
• 6 Sigma and Lean will eventually fall out of favor and fall by the wayside (as the
current fad) and other “newer” approaches will evolve and be touted as the “answer”.
• New knowledge is not what is needed for organizations to become high-performing,
world-class competitors. Rather, what is needed are people who can take the
knowledge that currently exists and effectively implement it in the real world. A “root
cause” of any failed organizational initiative can often be traced back to poor
implementation of the information and tools, and not specifically because the tools or
knowledge were flawed.
• The success of both Lean and 6 Sigma rests more on effective changes to the “people-
side of the business and leadership” than on the importance of technical tools or
approaches. Only when the people within an organization embrace the philosophy
and concepts and then utilize these in driving and guiding their daily work tasks, does
success begin to grow.

Again, this process and evolution of approaches does not nullify either Lean or 6 Sigma.
Rather, each has their place in the business world and will serve a certain “niche” portion
of the organizational improvement movement. It is not correct to say that Lean is superior
or better than 6 Sigma, nor is 6 Sigma better or worse than Lean. Their effectiveness will
be determined by the Limited Factor of Implementation, as well as the culture, process
and systems of those organizations who attempt to implement them.

As it was pointed out earlier in this article, the factors that will undermine the success of
Lean are the same factors that will undermine 6 Sigma implementation. Conversely, the
factors that will enhance success of Lean will also enhance the success of 6 Sigma.

There is a synergy that can be developed by combining parts of 6 Sigma and parts of
Lean approaches. This does not have to become a “new movement”, but rather, an
approach that will enhance the success rate of implementation and organizational
performance. It will have to be seen whether combining the best of Lean and 6 Sigma
will alter the scope of the Factor of 12 or not. In either case, this battle between Lean and
6 Sigma should be ended and advocates from both approaches need to stop emphasizing
any small differences between the two approaches, and focus on the similarities and
synergy that can be obtained by using both systems.

“Why do we continue to think that everyone knows the basics of change, leadership
and performance, when the evidence in our own organization’s performance clearly
illustrates that misdirection; misunderstanding and poor performance exist?”
Copyrighted 2006 Lean Manufacturing Consortium

Daniel J. Stoelb