The first person told me flat out, “I am not a fan of Lean Six Sigma.”  Hmmm.  When I questioned him, he explained to me that he was a busy program manager, and a superior manager enlisted him to transform the organization with LSS processes, and to compose a training plan to educate the whole company.  This person was anointed as the LSS Champion for his organization, and yet had never taken an LSS class in the first place.  He also told me about how difficult it was to get company approval for the changes he was instructed to make.  As I peeled away the layers of his frustration, I questioned him, “Is it Lean Six Sigma you don’t like, or is it the internal politics of your company?”  BINGO.  I hit the nail on the head.  Lean Six Sigma wasn’t the problem, it was the scapegoat.  Any LSS practitioner could read this paragraph and understand that the approach for instituting Lean Six Sigma in that organization was not one that was particularly well thought out.  Score one for me!  I successfully defended Lean Six Sigma to the first nay-sayer I encountered.  That was easy!  I am awesome at this!

                The second interaction I had with a fellow networker that night would not be so easy.  He had had some exposure to Lean Six Sigma and knew it was process-driven, and occasionally, process-heavy.  He asked me if the emphasis on process stifled innovation.  I wasn’t stumped, but I was definitely pensive….I know that Lean Six Sigma optimizes current processes and current results.  Design for Six Sigma (a philosophy applied at many manufacturing enterprises) attempts to lay strong ground work before new processes or projects begin…but could it really stifle innovation?? 

                This colleague sent me a link to a speech given by professional business analyst Simon Wardley at the last O’Reilly OSCON (Open Source Convention)*.  The speaker had some excellent points about business and processes.  The core of his discussion was that any company has a mass of activities, all at different stages of their lifecycles.  Activities at the beginning of their lifecycle are chaotic (dynamic, uncertain), eventually are transitioned to a phase of linear behavior (repeatable, standardized, predictable).   He explained that today’s new, chaotic activities [innovations] are the profit center of the future…today’s linear activities provide profit for today.   I was completely on board with the speaker up to this point.

                The speaker touts the “fantastic” (his quote) impact on Lean Six Sigma on the linear activities:  these activities are in fact repeatable, and standard.  I agree, as most case studies we discuss in our classes feature processes today, products made today, measurable results for today.  The speaker then says, bluntly, that , “Six Sigma absolutely sucks when you try to manage innovation because it seeks to reduce variation.”      I went back and listened to this sentence no less than three times.  Do you see a word missing in this sentence?  I do, and it made all the difference. 

                I suppose the speaker has a point (albeit crass) that overlaying a philosophy that reduces variation atop of this trial-and-error stage of activities would be counter-intuitive.  However, if the speaker led his sentence with the word LEAN, it would have made his argument  completely baseless.  Lean is the corollary, the partner, the precursor to Six Sigma.  The words are not synonyms.  Together, positive results can be achieved in chaotic AND linear activities. 

                Lean is a separate beast  from Six Sigma, as its focus is waste reduction (not reducing variance).  Lean comes first in verbiage and business improvement.  Lean addresses what we call “low hanging fruit” and can clear the way of extraneous waste to create a healthy environment for innovation and growth. 

                Perhaps if the speaker understood Lean and its partnership with Six Sigma, he wouldn’t have been so eager to throw the whole philosophy down the drain.  By his example, Six Sigma’s only utilization is at one end of the business lifecycle.    Hundreds of powerful companies wouldn’t have woven Lean Six Sigma practices into every facet of their corporate cloth if it was only useful in one part of business.  Understanding and correctly using the tools of Lean and Six Sigma (which was lacked by the speaker) and having corporate support and participation (lacking in the first networkers’ company) are critical to success.   Wrongly defined or mistakenly applied, though, and these tools earn a poor reputation….and that is just too bad. 

*Link to speech:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oyf4vvJyy4&start=12:58