This chapter is from the book
This chapter is from the book
This chapter is from the book
Current State of the Art
What exactly do we mean by Lean Six Sigma 2.0? We borrow the numbering system of information technology and its numbering approach to software revisions. The first version of a software system is usually Version 1.0, for obvious reasons. Next, when minor updates are made, such as fixing bugs or providing incremental enhancements, the new version typically is listed as 1.1, or perhaps even 1.0.1, to indicate an even smaller change than 1.1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning). The version is not listed as 2.0 until it has a major enhancement, which often involves a total rewrite of the code.
In our view, Six Sigma has undergone considerable evolution during its lifetime. However, these enhancements have been primarily incremental in nature and have not rethought the fundamental paradigm of Six Sigma. We therefore refer to these enhancements as Six Sigma 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and so on, as shown in Table 1.1. We feel that because of the radical changes in the world since 1987, a rethinking of the fundamental paradigm of Six Sigma is now required. We refer to this approach as Lean Six Sigma 2.0, and we discuss this in more detail in Chapter 2, “What Is Holistic Improvement?”.
Let’s take another look at how Six Sigma has evolved since 1987.
Table 1.1 Versions of Six Sigma to Date
Version |
Description |
1.0 |
Original rollout at Motorola: 1987 |
1.1 |
GE enhancements: circa 2000 |
1.2 |
Lean Six Sigma: circa 2005 |
1.3 |
Lean Six Sigma and Innovation (ambidextrous organizations): circa 2010 |
Versions 1.0 and 1.1
As noted in the previous section, we refer to the original development of Six Sigma at Motorola as Six Sigma 1.0. Recall that this methodology focused on manufacturing and ways to improve existing processes. GE made several enhancements to Six Sigma, as discussed previously. These included adding a Define stage, developing the DMADV approach to designing projects, and broadening the effort beyond manufacturing to also include finance, healthcare, and administrative processes. GE referred to applications outside of manufacturing as Commercial Quality (Hahn et al., 2000). Each of these enhancements was noteworthy and important in its own right. However, we could also argue that each enhancement was a logical extension of what came previously. Therefore, the GE version of Six Sigma around the turn of the millennium might accurately be referred to as Six Sigma 1.1. Version 1.1 was a significant improvement over Version 1.0, but it was based on the same fundamental paradigm.
Version 1.2: Lean Six Sigma
The first major integration effort occurred when Lean Manufacturing principles were integrated with Six Sigma, creating Lean Six Sigma (George, 2002). Before this integration, proponents of one of these methodologies commonly viewed the other methodology as the enemy. Six Sigma proponents tended to disparage Lean as simplistic and unscientific, and Lean proponents disparaged Six Sigma as expensive and academic, essentially trying to use dynamite to kill an ant. This competition confused management at many organizations, who tried to filter through the smoke to determine what approaches to use. A major advantage of Lean Six Sigma (which took several years to become popular enough to replace Six Sigma) is that it minimized this competition and put both sets of proponents on the same team. Of course, it also broadened the scope of problems that could be tackled effectively by offering a more diverse toolkit. We therefore refer to Lean Six Sigma as Version 1.2, a significant enhancement over Version 1.1.
Version 1.3: Lean Six Sigma and Innovation
More recently, both researchers and practitioners have investigated the relationship between Lean Six Sigma and innovation. Hindo (2007) evaluated issues in Six Sigma deployment at 3M and suggested that Six Sigma and innovation are antagonistic. That is, Hindo contended that although deploying Six Sigma offered important incremental improvements, it would damage creative, innovative cultures, such as the one at 3M, because it was too rigorous and disciplined.
We did not take this contention seriously because, throughout our careers, we have seen that virtually all Six Sigma projects require creative thought to be completed successfully. However, we understand that this claim needs to be answered via research. Hoerl and Gardner (2010) demonstrated that Lean Six Sigma can actually enhance the innovation of an organization. They pointed out that the scientific method, upon which Lean Six Sigma is based, has sparked creativity and accelerated innovation for centuries. More specifically, they suggested that a proper relationship exists between the development of business strategy and idea generation based on this strategy, and Six Sigma projects. This relationship incorporates both Design for Six Sigma and more traditional Lean Six Sigma projects.
Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) noted that, to be successful in the long term, organizations need to be operationally efficient (that is, continuously improve existing operations) and also able to innovate to develop new products and services. Doing only one of these well is not sufficient over time. Birkinshaw and Gibson refer to organizations that can both optimize operations (“exploitation”) and innovate (“exploration”) as ambidextrous. Significant research has shown that when Six Sigma is properly implemented (for example, with a good balance of design projects and improvement projects), it does help organizations achieve ambidexterity. In addition, Six Sigma can enhance rather than stifle creativity and innovation (He et al., 2015; Gutierrez et al., 2012; Gutierrez et al., 2016).
We view the effective integration of Lean Six Sigma with creative efforts to innovate new products and services to be a significant step forward in the overall evolution of Lean Six Sigma. Therefore, we refer to this integration that produces ambidextrous organizations as Lean Six Sigma 1.3. Of course, additional skills and tools are needed to effectively innovate. This includes the theory of inventive problem solving, which is often referred to in the literature as TRIZ, the transliteration of its original Russian acronym (Altshuller, 1992).
We now consider the limitations of Lean Six Sigma 1.3 and look at a potential new paradigm for overcoming these limitations using a fundamentally new approach to improvement that is suitable for modern times.
