As originally posted on LinkedIn on July 11, 2016. Ivan Del Valle is the author of "The Ring Of The Witch: The Curse Of Apollo". Learn more about the book at ' https://www.sevenheartspublishing.com/featured-book '.
Four weeks in Lyon, France
Years ago... Saint-Exupéry Airport (LYS)... "Excusez-moi monsieur. Vous ne pouvez pas être là . Vous avez besoin de se déplacer ."... I looked at her and said to myself... Lucky me! She should have found the piece of luggage I lost! I had so many important things there! I am so lucky!! Suddenly, she raised the tone of her voice... "Monsieur. Vous ne pouvez pas être là . Déplacer! Déplacer!" I gave her my smile #6 (one of my best) and said: "Sorry... I don't speak French. Do you speak English?" She replied... "Yes, sir. You can't be there. You need to move. Now."...It took me like three seconds to respond... "Oh!... Sure!... I'll move my ### right away!" - and that, my dear reader, was my "welcome" to Lyon, France.
What a beautiful place... Lyon is a city in France’s Rhône-Alpes region, sitting at the confluence of the Rhône and Saône rivers. Its city center reflects 2,000 years of history, with a Roman amphitheater in Fourvière, medieval and Renaissance architecture in Vieux Lyon, and the modern, redeveloped Confluence district on the Presqu'île peninsula between the rivers. France's second-most important city after Paris is surprisingly undiscovered. Although Lyon doesn't often make it onto tourist itineraries, many cultural treasures await those who take the time to explore it. It's ample cuisine variety is unparalleled in the entire region.
A few years ago, I was send on a business trip to L'Isle-d'Abeau (18 miles SE from Lyon) for my formal "Lean Six Sigma" training to become a Black Belt (CSSBB). I went there twice, spending two sessions of two weeks each, separated by six weeks back home (4 weeks in total of full time training). I'm sure you are saying right now... Poor little thing... What a sacrifice... (Would it be politically correct to insert a 'happy face' emoticon here?). Let's talk a bit about "Lean", and "Six Sigma"...
"Lean" is an improvement approach aimed to improve efficiency through removing wastes; while "Six Sigma" focuses on improving process capability through reducing variation. (If I am speaking Mandarin Chinese to you, my apologies. I'll try to translate the technical concepts into 'plain English' as much as possible.) "Lean Six Sigma" strives to combine both into an unified approach.
"Lean" sees the world in terms of wastes (excess inventory; waiting; over-production; rework; over-processing; excess motion; transportation; and underutilized people), as well as in terms of losses (breakdowns; set-up and adjustment; idling and stoppages; reduced speed; start-up & yield; and quality defects), using primarily the PDSA methodology at its core (Plan, Do, Study, Act). The "Lean" POR (Plan Of Record) is typically facilitated through a series of Kaizen events ("Kaizen' is a Sino-Japanese word meaning "change for better"), which concentrate resources in short time-frames, focused on "quick wins" and/or initial gains.
"Six Sigma" sees the world in terms of statistical variation (caused by poor design; changing needs; measurement systems; insufficient process capability; and skills & behaviors), using at its core the DMAIC methodology (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control). When you hear the term "Six Sigma", you usually hear "nerdy" things (sorry, I'm just making fun of myself) such as multi-variant studies, correlations, regressions, T-Test, ANOM, ANOVA, SPC (statistical process control), DOE, etc. The "Six Sigma" POR is typically facilitated through projects, with resources spread over months, focused on long-term gains and in-depth studies.
The overlap between "Lean" and "Six Sigma" occurs on what we refer to as the "soft tools". Examples include: 5S, Brainstorming (mind mapping; affinity diagrams), Cause & Effect (5 whys; 'fish bone' diagrams; root cause analysis), and other tools primarily under the categories of process mapping, preventive control, and error proofing.
The primary argument against a predominant "Lean" CI (continuous improvement) culture is that it relies more on intuition and common sense (statistical data analysis is not emphasized). Those who argue against "Six Sigma" usually criticize its limited "systems view", and its systemic approach that more often than not, over-complicate things even when problems and solutions might be simple and apparent. You have no idea how passionate my CMBB and CSSBB colleagues - and the L6S community in general - can be when we start debating about this. Several weeks ago I wrote a post titled "Six Sigma Fixation" in one of the primary LinkedIn Groups on the topic, and it got a lot of... Well... Let's simply say, attention... I have no doubts this article will generate the same kind of passion and discussions in favor and against several of my points on it. And believe me... The L6S community is not shy at all, and I know well incredibly talented SMEs (Subject Matter Experts), with egos that reach the moon. (I'm sure you will see what I mean.)
Individually, "Lean" and "Six Sigma" have their strengths and weaknesses (each on its own can achieve similar results), but combined they can leverage each other and be more efficient & effective. The right approach really depends on CI activities by size, time, nature, format, and/or simply the practitioner skill set (thus the importance of a comprehensive "Lean Six Sigma" training approach for Belts). At the end, and regardless of the methodology or toolkit used, we should strive to improve speed; sustain performance; and achieve breakthroughs that give us higher quality at lower costs.
"Six Sigma" sees the world in terms of statistical variation (caused by poor design; changing needs; measurement systems; insufficient process capability; and skills & behaviors), using at its core the DMAIC methodology (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control). When you hear the term "Six Sigma", you usually hear "nerdy" things (sorry, I'm just making fun of myself) such as multi-variant studies, correlations, regressions, T-Test, ANOM, ANOVA, SPC (statistical process control), DOE, etc. The "Six Sigma" POR is typically facilitated through projects, with resources spread over months, focused on long-term gains and in-depth studies.
The overlap between "Lean" and "Six Sigma" occurs on what we refer to as the "soft tools". Examples include: 5S, Brainstorming (mind mapping; affinity diagrams), Cause & Effect (5 whys; 'fish bone' diagrams; root cause analysis), and other tools primarily under the categories of process mapping, preventive control, and error proofing.
The primary argument against a predominant "Lean" CI (continuous improvement) culture is that it relies more on intuition and common sense (statistical data analysis is not emphasized). Those who argue against "Six Sigma" usually criticize its limited "systems view", and its systemic approach that more often than not, over-complicate things even when problems and solutions might be simple and apparent. You have no idea how passionate my CMBB and CSSBB colleagues - and the L6S community in general - can be when we start debating about this. Several weeks ago I wrote a post titled "Six Sigma Fixation" in one of the primary LinkedIn Groups on the topic, and it got a lot of... Well... Let's simply say, attention... I have no doubts this article will generate the same kind of passion and discussions in favor and against several of my points on it. And believe me... The L6S community is not shy at all, and I know well incredibly talented SMEs (Subject Matter Experts), with egos that reach the moon. (I'm sure you will see what I mean.)
Individually, "Lean" and "Six Sigma" have their strengths and weaknesses (each on its own can achieve similar results), but combined they can leverage each other and be more efficient & effective. The right approach really depends on CI activities by size, time, nature, format, and/or simply the practitioner skill set (thus the importance of a comprehensive "Lean Six Sigma" training approach for Belts). At the end, and regardless of the methodology or toolkit used, we should strive to improve speed; sustain performance; and achieve breakthroughs that give us higher quality at lower costs.
Disclaimer: When I refer to the European vs. American way of teaching "Lean Six Sigma", I refer in specific to the emphasis at the time of the learning experience within the Company I was working for. In no way I am implying differences at the country/cultural level, beyond just my experience while working for 'Goliath' (sorry, internal joke for those who have followed my recent posts).
When I took my Black Belt training in Europe, my mentors focused much more on "Lean" tools and "Change Management" (using PDSA cycles and SPC charts to validate the improvements) than on pure statistical methods. We did cover "Six Sigma" tools, but that was definitively not the core of the training. They put much more emphasis on developing a bottoms-up CI culture, with the primary goal of turning us into facilitators of the practical use of tools by everyone within the Organization. I have to admit that I was heavily influenced by my three Master Black Belt mentors, as well as accepting that I am biased for simplicity, so it was kind of disappointing to me that the "Americas' way" of implementing "Lean Six Sigma" became the standard across the entire Company worldwide. Don't get me wrong... I fully understood and aligned to the Americas' focused data-driven approach, but my issue with that (which I verbalized several times) was the overuse and unnecessary application of statistical approaches for everything.
The "Americas' way" standardized the methodology to be taught and to be applied (turning it into what at the time I referred to as "a cookbook with pretty defined recipes"). The problem was that the DMAIC methodology and the "Six Sigma" statistical approach became THE continuous improvement culture, instead of implementing a culture flexible enough to interchange tools and approaches as appropriate. Sure... The official mantra was using "the right tool for the right situation", but when the lights were turned off, they put on their secret society wardrobes and started adoring Minitab as their almighty superior being (just... disregard... that last comment). When you force practical problems to become statistical problems, then inevitably what would otherwise be a practical solution becomes a complex statistical solution.
When I look back at my CI initiatives in the last few years, I would say that I've used primarily "Lean" tools at least 80% of the time (instead of going deep on statistical analysis). Even if I look at the remaining 20% of the time, I have to say I've consciously used advanced "Six Sigma" tools just for the sake of practicing, and changing my approach for things that I knew by experience didn't require that level of complexity. What I really like about "Lean" is its simplicity, and how suitable it is to teach and provide future practitioners straightforward examples that they can easily visualize, and most importantly, quickly apply. in real life scenarios. On the other side, there are things that "Lean" simply can't accomplish with the basic toolkit, and require a much deeper analysis. The key is the balance... How do you make sure that as an Organization you focus your culture on an overall "Lean" strategy, while identifying, and providing the appropriate investment and resources to "Six Sigma" suited opportunities...
Two weeks after my first arrival at Lyon, France... Saint-Exupéry Airport (LYS)... "Monsieur! Monsieur! C'est toi! C'est toi! Je ne peux pas croire que je vous ai trouvé ! Nous avons trouvé vos bagages! Vous devez être la personne de luckies dans le monde!" I looked back at this other French lady without understanding anything she was saying, and told her in English... I know, I know... I shouldn't be standing here. I'm moving. I'm moving. Please, not now... (making a "stop" gesture with my hand) I'm late for taking my flight... And I turned my back on her and left, never seeing her again. Years later, I still wonder what she was trying to tell me...
When I took my Black Belt training in Europe, my mentors focused much more on "Lean" tools and "Change Management" (using PDSA cycles and SPC charts to validate the improvements) than on pure statistical methods. We did cover "Six Sigma" tools, but that was definitively not the core of the training. They put much more emphasis on developing a bottoms-up CI culture, with the primary goal of turning us into facilitators of the practical use of tools by everyone within the Organization. I have to admit that I was heavily influenced by my three Master Black Belt mentors, as well as accepting that I am biased for simplicity, so it was kind of disappointing to me that the "Americas' way" of implementing "Lean Six Sigma" became the standard across the entire Company worldwide. Don't get me wrong... I fully understood and aligned to the Americas' focused data-driven approach, but my issue with that (which I verbalized several times) was the overuse and unnecessary application of statistical approaches for everything.
The "Americas' way" standardized the methodology to be taught and to be applied (turning it into what at the time I referred to as "a cookbook with pretty defined recipes"). The problem was that the DMAIC methodology and the "Six Sigma" statistical approach became THE continuous improvement culture, instead of implementing a culture flexible enough to interchange tools and approaches as appropriate. Sure... The official mantra was using "the right tool for the right situation", but when the lights were turned off, they put on their secret society wardrobes and started adoring Minitab as their almighty superior being (just... disregard... that last comment). When you force practical problems to become statistical problems, then inevitably what would otherwise be a practical solution becomes a complex statistical solution.
When I look back at my CI initiatives in the last few years, I would say that I've used primarily "Lean" tools at least 80% of the time (instead of going deep on statistical analysis). Even if I look at the remaining 20% of the time, I have to say I've consciously used advanced "Six Sigma" tools just for the sake of practicing, and changing my approach for things that I knew by experience didn't require that level of complexity. What I really like about "Lean" is its simplicity, and how suitable it is to teach and provide future practitioners straightforward examples that they can easily visualize, and most importantly, quickly apply. in real life scenarios. On the other side, there are things that "Lean" simply can't accomplish with the basic toolkit, and require a much deeper analysis. The key is the balance... How do you make sure that as an Organization you focus your culture on an overall "Lean" strategy, while identifying, and providing the appropriate investment and resources to "Six Sigma" suited opportunities...
Two weeks after my first arrival at Lyon, France... Saint-Exupéry Airport (LYS)... "Monsieur! Monsieur! C'est toi! C'est toi! Je ne peux pas croire que je vous ai trouvé ! Nous avons trouvé vos bagages! Vous devez être la personne de luckies dans le monde!" I looked back at this other French lady without understanding anything she was saying, and told her in English... I know, I know... I shouldn't be standing here. I'm moving. I'm moving. Please, not now... (making a "stop" gesture with my hand) I'm late for taking my flight... And I turned my back on her and left, never seeing her again. Years later, I still wonder what she was trying to tell me...
Comments
Post a Comment