Articles
Media »
Videos
Podcasts
White Papers
Interviews
Columns
Blogs
Books
Webinars
Conferences
Should Lean Six Sigma Be “Scrapped” for More “Human-Centric” Methods?
August 13, 2009 – 3:42 amI love a good debate. That’s why everyday I scout out the Q & A section or comments sections on Six Sigma IQ to see if anyone has submitted any thought-provoking post; it’s great when I see the same post stir up other thought-provoking posts in response.
The Question That Stirred It All
One day, I did come across a question that I knew would definitely stir up many folks. I couldn’t help posting the same question on other social media sites in order to gain further reaction from it. The question, authored by Sergei Dovgodko, went like this:
Literally within a few minutes after posting this question on one social media site, I got my first reaction to this question (I eventually received about 25 comments back after a couple of days). This commenter did not disagree with the question’s author in that you must include qualitative analysis with quantitative analysis, and that human relationships are key to any successful business. However, she did not advocate getting rid of Lean and Six Sigma.
Do Not Scrap Lean Six Sigma!
That was the overwhelming response from the other contributors whose comments flooded in after this post. Many agreed that you cannot just “focus on gut and instinct and feelings rather than data.” In addition, there were many advocates of Lean who couldn’t quite believe that it would be assumed that Lean is divorced from people as “Lean is all about people.”
Should We Get Robots to Use Lean Six Sigma Instead?
Most quality professionals don’t make the claim that Lean SIx Sigma is a “panacea” for all of a company’s process problems, and neither do any of these commenters. They do acknowledge that you need “humans” to use the tools properly and that misuse of these process improvement tools should not negate their use.
In sum, a company should be making sure that there is proper employee engagement for Lean SIx Sigma tools within its organization. I know from personal experience, when I worked on process improvement initiatives for my former employer, I always felt most engaged with process improvement when my management team clearly articulated to me how my efforts were going to help the organization’s customers and its bottom-line.
Your Thoughts?
What are your thoughts on this question? Do you see any validity to what it proposes?
5 Responses to “Should Lean Six Sigma Be “Scrapped” for More “Human-Centric” Methods?”
Wow! This will draw the flies. My read is that the focus on tools in Lean Six Sigma has made the process less human. As a “reformed” lean six sigma MBB there are elements that are attractive to “Human-Centric” even though defined in many ways.
If you go back to Deming and Ohno the emphasis was always about the people in a systemic way. There thinking cleared the path to make the worker relevant. The emphasis here is on the thinking, not the tools. Both Deming and Lean were hijacked by the likes of TQM, Lean and Six Sigma with black belts, certifications, tools etc. We ruined what Deming brought back to us as the scientific management, mass production mentality still prevails in management thinking. We have improved processes and flow without addressing the underlying thinking and either lost the improvements or never really had them. We continue to pay a heavy economic price for our inability to learn and advance the thinking. This crisis may provide us one more opportunity to get it right in service and manufacturing here in the US.
Tripp
http://www.newsystemsthinking.com
By Tripp Babbitt on Aug 17, 2009
This is one of those either/or questions that just don’t work in the real world.
IMHO, any process improvement effort sits at the interface between the technical and the human. That is the challenge of being an effective LSS leader. You are the one who is required to create that interface. You must be skilled in both technical analysis and enrolling/empowering a group of human beings.
Unfortunately the reason this question comes up at all is that LSS training is woefully out of balance. Most training programs are completely inadequate in teaching Leadership and Facilitation People Skills … many ignore them altogether. So you have unidimensional leaders finding resistence when they are only skilled at offering technical input. It is time to People front and center … by putting People Skills training on equal footing.
My two cents,
Dike Drummond MD http://www.superteams.com
By Dike Drummond MD on Aug 18, 2009
Yes, I agree with Dr. Drummond that this is a false choice.
Any decisions on change must be based in facts. Facts are based on measurements. From measurements, one gains insight to the cause of problems, as well as from the people involved in the change.
Any changes must involve people. To try to create change to people, without cooperation is a recipe for failure.
This is the essence of change management: involving people affected by the change in the solution to the problems that necessitate the change. This is Deming’s approach as well. Go and see and talk to the people involved.
None of this repudiates or invalidates Six Sigma or Lean. The fact the question came up means some people were not managing the changes caused by Six Sigma very well.
By Jeffry Smith, PMP, Certified Black Belt on Aug 25, 2009
After I posted this question, I got a sort hate mail from Six Sigma IQ people.
At first, I was surprised by a ferocious denial of question. But than what I realized that people’s mind is closed to re-framing Six Sigma. I guess I observe the operating realities in a different way (as Six Sigma Operations Manager at 3M).
I have concluded some time ago that some basic proposition of Six Sigma are simply false in the context of business improvement.
One of this proposition is that it is all about process and the best way of improving is using process thinking. In my option, this is the most shallow way of viewing the business reality. This perspective plays important but a secondary role. It leads people into quantitative analysis that provides little value for solving high-impact business challenges.
Then there is the weltanschauung that business is a big machine for making money. This so-called “Modern View” of organizations that is very dated. In the last 30 years various sciences related to social psychology have developed the Post-Modern View, that is in the nutshell, states that a business is a goal-oriented system of people.
Suddenly you realize that there is a more effective way of looking at improvement and quality fields. People (and their relationships in the organization), instead of being the “fifth wheel” attached to the “process car”, become from and center of the imporvement.
You can also see that people waste their time collecting and analyzing useless numerical data working on thing that don’t matter.
Also, you can start seeing that things/data that matter are tacit cannot and should not be measured. They should felt/sensed.
Anyway, there is much more.
Since my team and I expanded our understanding of the business improvement field, we have developed a new capacity to solving problems that are impossible from the perspective of Six Sigma.
Our “new Six Sigma” (we call it PRISM) does require additional skill set and a command of methods of social psychology and other fields. I do have statisticians on my team. After making the mental lead, they feel there is no way back. In their minds, Six Sigma is basically dead, with the exception for highly repetitive processes in the closed system with no people present.
It is worth to remember that any improvement is driven by emotion. Simple, but it take a while to internalize it.
My estimate is that it will take about 5-7 for the Six Sigma industry to internalize those few points that I laid out above ( and about another 5 or so I did not talk about).
Some won’t do it and will be marginalized by the the forces of competition. Remember business wants to see observable non-incremental value!
The others will make steps in the right direction. Plus people from human-related fields will start doing this work.
A new fad will appear and it will not be called Six Sigma. Patches will not do, as there is clear way to abandon the fundamentals and get much better results (read Innovator’s Dilemma).
It could be called Design Thinking or Human Sigma or something else. Smart people will signal the new beginning, as in US new things sell better than the old ones. It is a part of our culture!
By Sergei Dovgodko on Sep 14, 2009
In automated manufacturing, the PROCESS is MOSTLY in the MACHINE, and the HUMAN factors are mostly in the MAINTENANCE of the machines. But few factories are fully automated, so a high percentage of the overall SYSTEM is HUMAN. And in service companies, PROCESS is MOSTLY HUMAN.
That said, all team efforts require leadership skills, and simple meeting management discipline would go a long way to getting projects focused, keep them on target, and redirect them based on new data.
If the systematic methods INCORPORATE good understanding of human factors (as in process mapping, brainstorming, Kaizen teams, DMAIC teams) then name that what you will…it incorporates the best ideas shared in each industry-type. We know that politically many leaders want their stamp on these efforts, so they often rename them. That is OK, as they now have SKIN in the game. But bad idea if it DESTROYS motivation and teamwork of previously trained teams in whatever disciplined methods are working for them.
By Mike Clayton on Jan 12, 2010