The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0954-478X.htm

Six sigma and

A review and comparison of six the lean
sigma and the lean organisations organisations
Tony Bendell
Centre of Quality Excellence, The University of Leicester, Leicester, UK 255
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to review and compare six sigma and the lean organisation
approaches to process improvement. The basis for combination and compatibility is evaluated and a
holistic approach proposed.
Design/methodology/approach – The examination is based on the author’s extensive practical
consulting and training experience with diverse six sigma, lean and business process improvement
programmes in numerous companies across Europe and worldwide, as well as theoretical
development of his previous published work.
Findings – The paper contends that the current literature on the compatibility and combination of
six sigma and lean is limited and disappointing when examined for a common model, theoretical
compatibility or mutual content or method, but that they can be effectively combined into one system.
Research limitations/implications – The study is experience-based and not supported by a
specific-quantitative investigation.
Practical implications – Companies pursuing six sigma and lean implementation programmes
need to carefully examine how the proposed initiatives relate to each other and other initiatives before
fully committing, or at least to review the programme, to enable sensible programme design and
management.
Originality/value – This paper focuses on six sigma and lean programmes in practice, rather than
the theoretical basis or motivationally based argument.
Keywords Quality, Six sigma, Production improvement
Paper type General review

Introduction
Two currently “hot” process improvement approaches are six sigma and lean
enterprise theory. The two are related, but distinct. Six sigma focuses on the reduction
and removal of variation by the application of an extensive set of statistical tools and
supporting software, whilst lean thinking focuses on the reduction and removal of
waste by process and value analysis. Both methods have origins in aspects of Japanese
improvement practise, but have been to a large extend molded in North America.
An area of overlap in Poka Yoke/mistake proofing since human errors cause both
unwanted variation and waste. Lean manufacturing, now extended to lean service
originated in Japan in Toyota. In contrast, six sigma is an America packaging of a
statistical approach widely used in Japanese industry.
There have been attempts to combine the two methodologies under titles such
as “Lean Six Sigma” or “Lean Sigma”. Often, this alleged combination is no more
than a “philosophical” or near-religious argument about professed compatibility of
approaches. In reality these are practical examples of incompatibility and even The TQM Magazine
Vol. 18 No. 3, 2006
conflicts between the approaches that have lead to suboptimal processes and process pp. 255-262
improvement programmes. To what extent then are the two approaches compatible q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0954-478X
and how can they be effectively combined in one system? DOI 10.1108/09544780610659989
TQM This paper reviews the origins and nature of the six sigma and lean approaches to
18,3 process improvement, identifying their individual and joint strengths and limitations.
A comparison is made of the two approaches and of the argument for and against
combination discussed. The basis for compatibility is assessed and holistic approach
to combination into a six sigma – lean methodology is proposed.

256 The six sigma approach

The professional and academic management and engineering press has been giving
increasing attention to six sigma. Bendell (2000) reviewed the origins of the six sigma
approach. Bendell and Marra (2002) analysed the method, Bendell and Corke (2001)
amongst others focussed on particular deficiencies and criticisms of the approach, and
Bendell (2002a) considered whether application in Europe was qualitatively different.
Originating in Motorola and highly developed within GE and many others, the
application has now spread across manufacturing, design and transactional areas.
See, e.g. Harry and Schroeder (2000) and Breyfogle (1999). Applications in the service
sector have focused, in particular, on financial services, travel and more recently the
public sector.
The approach has proved itself highly effective in terms of delivering cost
savings and, increased customer satisfaction. The approach is based upon
project-by-project improvement, with projects lead by full-time improvement
engineers or managers termed “Black Belts” or part-time improvers (minimum
20 per cent) often from supervision referred to as “Green Belts”. These make use
of an impressive arsenal of statistical tools within the DMAIC projects phases of
define, measure, analyse, improve and control. Initial Black and Green Belt projects
are selected prior to training and projects are typically not signed off, nor Black
and Green Belts certified, until target financial savings are independently verified.
This process ensures that the transfer of method to first application is effectively
implemented.
Typically, six sigma is a strategic, company-wide, approach. By focussing on
variation reduction, projects have the potential of simultaneously reducing cost and
increasing customer satisfaction. However, whilst the rhetoric of six sigma emphasises
customer focus, observation and discussion strongly suggest that typically the
majority of projects have a “Cost-Down” focus that does not directly impact on
customer satisfaction and hence are suboptimal. Previous work by the author has
contrasted traditional “Cost-Down Six Sigma” with “Profit-Up Six Sigma” and
identified further opportunities to extend the six sigma model.
In many ways, despite what some in Europe have identified as “American hype”
there is nothing fundamentally new in six sigma. It is just a very clever package with
all or almost all of the right ingredients, and a project and company-wide infrastructure
to hold the programme together to make sure it delivers the desired payback. It focuses
around Juran’s concept of project-by-project improvement with clear responsibilities
and authority; and before and after performance measurement, typically on a cost
basis. It also relies (for its power) on the use of approximately 140 statistical tools and
concepts to effectively define, measure, analyse, improve and control variation.
The DMAIC project methodology is particularly effective for manufacturing and
simple transactional processes – especially when an additional T: “transfer” stage is
added at the end to spread the learning to other areas.
 Clever too is the training approach, whereby Black and Green Belt candidates have Six sigma and
a project selected prior to training, work on it between the training modules (which the lean
typically last four days and are three to four weeks apart) and subsequently need to
demonstrate externally validated savings/payback before having their initial projects organisations
signed off and achieving Black or Green Belt status. Typically, a Black Belt will train
for 20 days and a Green Belt 10-15 days, but the integrated project approach ensures
that the transfer of theory to application takes place quickly and effectively. Another 257
key ingredient is the on-site mentoring, whereby experienced “Master Black Belts”
provide support to their less experienced colleagues within a rigorous reporting
framework.

The lean organisation

John Krafcik, first employed the word “Lean” to describe the new production
techniques introduced by Taiichi Ohno at Toyota after World War II. He was
studying developments in the automobile industry as part of the MIT International
Motor Vehicle Programme lead by Daniel Roos, James Womack and Daniel Jones.
The work was published in their book The Machine that Changed the World
(Womack et al., 1990). They referred to the group of techniques pioneered by
Toyota which they extended into their ideas of Lean Thinking (Womack and
Jones, 1996).
Womack and Jones identify five key principles of the lean organisation:
(1) the elimination of waste (or muda);
(2) the identification of the value stream;
(3) the achievement of flow through the process;
(4) pacing by a pull (or kanban) signal; and
(5) the continuous pursuit of perfection.

To achieve these principles, it is common to include a combination of techniques from

approaches such as just-in-time, the theory of constraints, and total quality
management, catalogues the techniques that can be useful in implementing lean.
However, the use of techniques alone does not in itself constitute being a lean
organisation.
Lean can be summarised as the systematic pursuit of perfect value through the
elimination of waste in all aspects of the organisations business processes. It requires a
very clear focus on the value element of all products and services and a thorough
understanding of the detailed operations of the business processes by which the
product or service is provided (the “Value Stream”).
As Womack et al. (1990, p. 13) put it:
Mass-producers set a limited goal for talks themselves – “good enough,” which
translates into an acceptable number of defects, a maximum acceptable level of
inventories, a narrow range of standardized products. To do better, they argue, would
cost too much or exceed inherent human capabilities. Lean producers, on the other hand,
set their sights explicitly on perfection: continually declining costs, zero defects, zero
inventories, and endless product variety. Of course, no lean producer has ever reached
this Promised Land – and perhaps none ever will, but the endless quest for perfection
continues to generate surprising twists.
TQM Comparing strengths and limitations
18,3 In common with other business improvement approaches six sigma and lean have, not
surprisingly, been subject to a number of criticisms. From relatively obscure in-house
company specific programmes, six sigma and lean training have become ill-defined
commodities with many different public offerings; one effect of this has been dilution,
with a number of supposed six sigma training programmes including a greatly
258 reduced statistical basis, toolsets and training days and lean practitioner training
varying greatly in approach, toolkit and duration.
Regardless of their duration and coverage, however, the vast majority of six sigma
programmes have one common feature: they all focus on the use of statistical
techniques and other “left-brain” tools such as Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.
Lean training is also often mainly founded on left-brain thinking. This may be both the
great strength and the great weakness of much of six sigma and lean methodology.
Although, often neglected, “right-brain” thinking, creativity and innovation can
contribute greatly to successful six sigma and lean implementation. There are many
simple and appropriate right-brain tools. The real issue, however, is the integral holistic
use of the right and left brain: whilst the left brain is useful for certain key six sigma and
lean aspects and tasks, the right brain is crucial for others. For example, the “define”
“improve” and “transfer” stages of six sigma projects clearly involve right-brain
activity, innovation and creativity. The right brain is also crucial for the key Black and
Green Belt roles of team leadership, idea generation and mentoring. In lean thinking this
separation of left and right brains corresponds to the systems focus of some American
approaches to lean, in contrast to the people focused Japanese approach.
Another key deficiency of six sigma and lean is the frequent lack of a formal link to
policy deployment. The six sigma “gospel” says that it is fundamentally about
customers – customer expectation and customer satisfaction. Jack Welch, former CEO
of GE, for instance, is on record as saying that the six sigma approach has taught GE
employees about the importance of fulfilling and surpassing customer expectations.
The authors’ experience of talking to Black and Green Belts, however, suggests a
different view – the major driver in project selection is “cost down”. Similarly with
lean, it is possible to forget the fundamental business strategic objective and get
dominated by immediate cost down driver.
In the six sigma and lean models, “cost down” is not necessarily at the expense of
“quality down” as it may have been historically. Rather, by concentrating on control and
reduction of variation and waste and hence defectivity, cost can be reduced and customer
satisfaction simultaneously increased. Sometimes, however, all the real internal emphasis
is on cost. In spite of this, there is much more to the customer satisfaction dimension than
cost reduction. The institutionalisation of six sigma or lean to the “cost down” model
results into narrow a focus on the traditional toolkit and approach to implementation.
Consequently, major improvement opportunities may be missed.
Going beyond “cost down” requires managers to think beyond the cost elements of
improvement projects, such as the typical 3:1 recurring return on investment ratio
often looked for and quoted in six sigma. Clearly, whilst it is important, “cost down”
should not be the sole driver of projects. The issue here is that cost represents an
important aspect of process efficiency – but does not, in itself, answer the effectiveness
question as to whether you are providing the right product or service. Profit is
generally a better focus, but itself may also be inadequate. See Bendell (2002b).
 Also there is evidence to suggest that to date the European development and Six sigma and
experience of six sigma and lean have been qualitatively different than that in the US. the lean
For example, a survey at the IQPC London Six Sigma Forum in 2001 implied that the
use of six sigma was seen as less strategic at the corporate level than in the US. organisations
As well as the common strengths and limitations discussed above, it is apparent from
section 2 and 3 that each of the two approaches has distinct strengths and limitations
relative to each other. In particular, six sigma may be criticised for a potential tendency 259
towards complexity of technique and analysis, whilst lean may be criticised for potential
naı̈ve simplicity. In reality, there apparent weaknesses are also strengths, since both
simple and sophisticated tools are sometimes needed. Clearly, properly implemented six
sigma should perform well as an approach if the business issue being addressed is really
a variation one, associated with coping with variation in demand or loading, or variation
in resource availability or performance. It is not the ideal approach for dealing with
problems of chronic waste or systematic under resourcing, for which lean methodology
is more appropriate. In contrast lean as a methodology is not primarily designed for
variation problems and lean programmes often focus on naı̈ve removal of all waste,
without regard to the difficulty this can create for the control phase, which is so
fundamental a part of six sigma DMAIC methodology.

Combination and compatibility

The literature on the compatibility and combination of six sigma and lean is limited and,
moreover, disappointing when examined for a common model, theoretical compatibility or
mutual content or method. Often, this alleged combination is no more than a “philosophical”
or near-religious argument about professed compatibility of approaches. In reality, these
are practical examples of incompatibility and even conflicts between the approaches that
have lead to suboptimal processes and process improvement programmes. One such
example has been referred to in the previous section whereby simplistic waste walks used
in some lean programmes attempt to remove all sources of waste, without real
prioritisation, hence creating a major problem in the six sigma project “Control” phase,
when the practicality of controlling for all these sources may be questionable.
Whilst such attempts to combine the two methodologies under titles such as
“Lean Sigma” and “Lean Six Sigma” may thus be questionable, it would be clearly
desirable if a single process improvement-based approach was available which
effectively combined the approaches. Some attempts to do this exists in which one of
the two approaches is taken as the “dominate” one, and the other approach as an
“subordinate” one. For example, a number of major in-company six sigma programmes
relegate lean to the level of a group of additional tools, and merely teach them to Black
and Green Belts as part of their training. The opposite is not so common, but some lean
consultants have started claiming six sigma to be part of the lean approach.
Clearly, “subsiderisation” is not particularly a good approach, since both
approaches have unique features and benefits, which only more effective
combinations would retain. To what extent then are the two approaches compatible
and how can they be effectively combined into one system?

An holistic methodology for “Six Sigma – Lean”

Both six sigma and lean have at heart the business process and the process
improvement approaches. An holistic model and methodology should thus retain this
TQM at its heart (Figure 1). The route through their approaches should depend primarily
18,3 upon the issues that the organisation is facing and its nature, as well a being influenced
by the organisation’s and individuals aspirations and perceptions.
For many organisations, a natural starting point for business process improvement
has been simple process thinking and mapping as a bonus for improvement (Figure 2).
The next step depends on organisational interest and business imperatives. Customer
260 or market pressure may require ISO9001:2000 certification. Concern as to adequate
qualified human resource to support process delivery may simply pursuit of a standard
such as Investors in People, whilst six sigma and lean are natural solutions to key
questions as to whether chronic waste or variation problems are dominate.
The directions shown in Figure 2 are not, of course, mutually exclusive. However,
the diagnostic questions are useful to help identify the likely primary direction. The
route chosen should reflect primary needs.
Whilst the above diagrams provide the basis for an holistic model and approach, the
nature of that approach needs further definition, which should encapsulate and contain
the common desirable features of six sigma and lean. These include:
.
strategic;
.
not just systems approach – integrated people and systems approach;
.
involvement and participation (not just specialist functions, e.g. operations
research);
.
deployed change agents with line reporting;
.
results-focussed;
.
measurement and “tool” based; and
.
integrated training and deployment.

Process Waste Process Variation

Reduction Reduction
(Lean) (Six Sigma)
Process Error
Reduction
(Poke Yoke)

Basic Business
Process
Improvement
(e.g. Process Mapping)
Figure 1.
A holistic model for
business process
improvement
 ISO9001: 2000
Six sigma and
the lean
organisations

Market Pressure? 261

Lean Chronic Process Mapping Variation Six

Organisation Waste? and Simple Problems? Sigma
Improvement

People Issue?
Figure 2.
Typical “Six
Sigma – Lean”
Investors in People organisational route map

References
Bendell, T. (2000), “What is six sigma?”, Quality World, January, pp. 14-17.
Bendell, T. (2002a), “Experience of six sigma in Europe: is European six sigma different?”,
Proceedings of GBATA, Conference Rome, June.
Bendell, T. (2002b), “Policy deployment and six sigma”, Proceedings of MAAOE
3rd International Research Conference on Organisational Excellence, University of
Paisley, Scotland, 11-13 September.
Bendell, T. and Corke, N. (2001), “Using your brain”, Quality World, January, pp. 28-30.
Bendell, T. and Marra, T. (2002), “Six sigma analysed”, Quality World, April, pp. 16-18.
Breyfogle, F.W. III (1999), Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods,
Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.
Harry, M. and Schroeder, R. (2000), Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy
Revolutionising the World’s Top Corporations, Century Double Day, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associates/Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY.

About the author

Tony Bendell has held the Chair of Quality and Reliability Management at the University of
Leicester since 1998, set-up with funding from Rolls-Royce plc. and initially jointly in the
University’s Department of Engineering and Management Centre. In January 2002, the new
TQM Centre of Quality Excellence was established at the University with Professor Bendell as
Director. The centre runs two MSc programmes by distance learning and in-company on the
18,3 management of quality excellence and on customer service management. A new campus-based
MSc in Engineering Management is planned. Tony is also an experienced consultant and trainer
working with numerous large and small companies including Rolls-Royce, BT, Motorola,
Marconi, Edexcel, Network Rail, the Learning and Skills Council and the public sector in the UK
and abroad. As Managing Director of Services Ltd in Nottingham, one of the three largest British
262 Quality Foundation licensed training and consultancy organisations, he has trained six sigma
Black and Green Belts, as well as Senior Management Champions and advised on the design and
deployment of six sigma, the EFQM excellence model, benchmarking, ISO 9001:2000 and lean
programmes in large and small manufacturing and service organisations in the UK and
worldwide.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.