Lean before Six Sigma

Dear Fidel,
It depends on what process in this company.
Normally, I think you may introduce Lean and Six Sigma together. Because you can benefit more than whatever Lean or SixSigma.
 
Hope assists,
Simon W

In my own opinion, lean exposes the problem (VSM) and Six Sigma is an excellent methodology that helps solve problem.
Hope it helps

You  have  to  use  a  mixture  of  both methodologies.

While the answer is probably one of opinion, I’ll throw in my two cents.
I think Lean is a better concept to begin with for a company that is just introducing continuous improvement.  It’s relatively easier to do and provides some quick hit improvements which I feel is essential for buy in from the organization.  Plus it reduces the number of steps which will help out when dealing with variation problems during the Six Sigma phase.  Plus it gives you something to do while training people in the Six Sigma methodology so you can jump in to find out who really wants to make the program work and use those people for the advanced training in Six Sigma.
But as I said before, it’s really an opinionated question.  I’m sure someone could reasonably argue the opposite of what I said.
Good luck either way!
Adam

Disagree?Not  so  simple,Lean  has  tools  too just  like  VSM,5Ss,Poka-Yuke..etc,SS has  more  than 50  tools  too (problem  solving  and  statistical  tools).Combining the  2  approaches  would  help  to  identify  defects,minimize faults,solving  problems,identifying  waste,reducing  costs,maintaing Quality,CS and  speed  in delivery  of  the  required  product or  service,best  regards. 

  You can use both . Lean is to reduce waste from the process, which is to shift the average of a non performing process. Six Sigma is to reduce variation, or reduce instability in the process output. Through experience, Lean is easier to teach and demonstrate to all levels of employees. Just select a pilot line/product and start applying the tools. Six Sigma seems to suit certain levels of employees – those who can cope with data collection, data analysis and interpretation.
Regards.

If you only have limited resources (as most companies do) I would implement Lean first and within 12 months start with 6-sigma.  The reason for this is that when we started 6-sigma we actually found that around 50% of the projects identified did not require 6-sigma but in fact lean techniques.  My company had been doing Lean for a number of years before the 6 sigma rollout but I think a lot of people forgot this and kept trying to force projects to fit the 6s tools.  Now we have re-shifted the focus and I think are getting much better results.  Projects are now identified using VSM (Lean) and then the right tool is applied be it lean or 6 s.  If you do not have 6 s capabilities yet you may have to park som of the improvement the projects identified until you do but I think this is better than wasting valuable resources making simple problems complicated and working on projects that ultimately do not add value.

I read Fidel’s discussion path with interest.  I’m part of a quite large Global company who began by introducting Six Sigma and is now expanding it’s efforts to include Lean Concepts.  The previous two posts capture much of our Key Learnings – If we had to do it again, we should have begun (like many of the experts say – good sources of reference is the Industry Week webinar archives, isixsigma archives, ISSSP, ARC, etc) with Lean and then introduced Six Sigma as part of the Lean umbrella.  Why?  Because to be successful, Lean drives culture change – provides standardization, flow, etc.
Key Learning: Tactical gains are easy, it’s cultural change that’s the challenge.  Not at the executive level, or the worker level – typically in the big between.
Now that we have struggled through the introduction of Lean into the Six Sigma umbrella, we find that Lean Concepts are more all-encompassing than Six Sigma, though it has hilighted the issue with poor leading-by-example of the middle-management ranks. 
Now a question to Fidel – When we started, it was “Choose Six Sigma or Choose Lean”  There is now support out there to begin as “Lean Six Sigma” – aka “Lean Sigma” – so why would you not start down the Lean Sigma path?
 

The key question in considering any approach is “What is the problem* that I am trying to solve?” 
*Problem:  anything that is not the way it should be, or the way you would like it to be.
Then, you select the best approach to solve that problem, whether it be Lean, Six Sigma, or another approach. 
Remember, the focus is to solve problems, not promote philosophies.

Additionally, a concept that Toyota used extensively to drive stability was Standard Work.
“Where there is no Standard there can be no Kaizen” – Taiichi Ohno

Adam,
I agree with you 100%. I currently work for a company that started the lean transformation a couple of years ago. It is still in process and it hasn’t been easy. Although we’ve made a lot of progress, I can’t imagine throwing the 6Sigma tools at this crowd. Our culture is made up of mostly uneducated employees, and just teaching them the lean ideas has been quite a struggle. So I think companies evolve, and when you start down the continuous improvement path, Lean is definitely the simpler, quicker to apply methodology of the two.

I don’t think you understood the content.  I said the LEAN events address quality issues prior to them happening.  I used the C-E diagram as a means of explaining.
Also, if a problem is already known or highly suspected, one can use the fishbone diagram as it is an easy method to teach, and also part of the basic tools.
Shainin methods are used to attack the difficult problems.

Practise Deming’s principles as Toyota does, and you will get the all the benefits of Lean … plus six sigma but without six sigma’s crap.

The Shainin speak that comes with the tools is pretty stupid.

I was trained by Dorian 25 years ago. I think the tools are good, but
not adequate. That’s all.

IMHO one significant factor to consider is the type of product being made, if the productss made are high-speed, high-volume, with low variability, where data is available easily, then using the Six Sigma approach first may be successful (REMOVING VARIABILITY IN THE PROCESS) 
However, if products are small volume, high variability, and relatively longer cycle time, then use of Lean first to increase speed thru the plant, (INCREASING FLOW THROUGH THE PROCESS).
Hope this helps, Srikanth Sarathy,
One of the more interesting thought provoking questions, might be worthy of a paper!!

I must agree that Demming’s philosophies have underpinned my Total Quality Ethos for 15 years. I have come to realise that without enlightened leaders all the fancy tools, (Six Sigma , Lean, Process improvement etc) are just that. There is one key point within my mind that realises real sustainable success and that is “Development”. “Continuous Personnel Development” that turns an organisation into a true learning organisation where tools and techniques can be embraced by knowledgeable, motivated people.
People in tune with their business systems are the key to real success. ” I believe”  a famous quote from many leaders but to change a culture all have to believe in their own potential to affect the outcomes! 

really?  look in the mirror!

I concur with Stan regarding the Shainin tools. I read Keki Bhote’s “World Class Quality” cover to cover (I also met him, and worked with his son Adi). Here’s my two-cents’ worth.
Even Shainin admits he did not create multi-vari charts, but it’s true that he put them on the map. That may be the only tool I have been able to use in a wide number of situations. The other tools are extremely picky – it simply is a rare instance where the situation makes the tools applicable. However, when such an instance arises, they are wonderfully simple and powerful. However, using the tools inappropriately can lead to erroneous conclusions.
His use of specification limits to establish zones for pre-control is simply wrong. However, if the zones are based on the mean plus-or-minus 1.5 nd 3 standard deviations, precontrol becomes statistically sound. However, once again we have a tool whose proper use is quite restricted – in twenty years in the field I have never seen a process for which pre-control fits.
Bottom line: I like multi-vari. I have nothing against the other tools, but they often are mis-matched with the application. Using them without full understanding of the conditions & restrictions is inadviseable.

I think Keki Bhote calls it Paired Comparison.  He uses the “BOBs vs WOWs” technique, as well as the Tukey end count.

My two cents :
Depends on what is meant “a company is doing well”, depends on your view angle:
Doing well in Quality of Product? How about Quality of Design (On time to Market? First pass rate?) How about Quality of Use? If all are doing well, how about the Business Quality environment (i.e. outward view – how your external partners or suppliers, or customers view you but not you view yourself)? How about your Organizational Quality (i.e. inward view – any wastes can be eliminated? can processes be faster, etc..)
According to different analysis results, you should adopt different methodologies.