The industry I work in is glass manufacturing. As with most manufacturing settings, Lean concepts have become the big topic and focus over recent years. A trend among sister plants has been to combine Lean, Quality, Six Sigma and other related areas into one department or all under one person depending on the size of the plant.
The general Lean agenda seems to receive more attention from top management and in many cases dominate other “quality and change” agendas. The comments and attatiude from management are as though Lean should somehow replace the Quality/ISO process or at least control it under thumb.
Thoughts or similar situations?
:whip:

20 years ago you would have said that about TQM

10 years ago you would have said that about Six Sigma

10 years from now they will say it about . . .

As long as management keeps chasing fads, we'll keep having these same laments.

Absolutely, Steve!

Back in the mid 90's, while I was working at Chrysler, one member of the CI group showed me that they had spent money on a new 'fad' every year for the previous 15 years - can you imagine how much $$$ was spent? Their fads ranged from Crosby, to SPC, to TQM, to Quality Circles...ad inf

I wonder where it got them....:notme:

Six sigma, and Lean projects are excellent improvement tools and no doubt they bring benefits to the industry, however I honestly do not believe they will supersede ISO based QMS systems, in my opinion because compliance is supported by QMS systems and various industry sectors depend on demonstrating compliance to remain on bussines. One clear example: FDA compliance, I don't think the FDA will ever buy a Lean project instead of meeting the QSR requirements.

So either we like it or not we will need to live in an ISO environment for long!

I started auditing with ISO 9001:1987, then 1994, then 2000, now 2008. I am getting old along with it, and I will pass away and ISO will stil be kicking

One is a system, the other a tool. Can a tool replace a system? - No.

So either we like it or not we will need to live in an ISO environment for long!

Systems are basic requirements unlike tools which can be flavors of the period.

One is a system, the other a tool. Can a tool replace a system? - No.

Systems are basic requirements unlike tools which can be flavors of the period.

Yes, exactly. Well said, Harry.:yes:

Sounds like another case of nothing coming out because nothing went in:frust:

You cannot get a return on an investment until after you actually invest

Totally agree with you both Randy and Jane

Thanks!

ISO 9001, Lean, Six Sigma are all standards. All of them have mandatory requirements. ISO 9001 is an international standard for quality management system. A system is a number of related things that work together to achieve an overall objective. On the other hand, Lean and Six Sigma, IMHO, is focuses on the management of something specific (more strict requirements) that is measured and reported to help managed the process to achieve optimal result.

ISO 9001, Lean, Six Sigma are all standards. All of them have mandatory requirements. ISO 9001 is an international standard for quality management system.

Can you point me to the "mandatory requirements" of Six Sigma and Lean?

ISO 9001, Lean, Six Sigma are all standards. All of them have mandatory requirements. ISO 9001 is an international standard for quality management system. A system is a number of related things that work together to achieve an overall objective. On the other hand, Lean and Six Sigma, IMHO, is focuses on the management of something specific (more strict requirements) that is measured and reported to help managed the process to achieve optimal result.

There are no 'standards' for Lean or Six Sigma.........the beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

Can you point me to the "mandatory requirements" of Six Sigma and Lean?

Hi Jim,

First I’m relatively new to quality and i’m not a Lean or Six Sigma expert. My basic understanding is that Six Sigma wants to deliver lower defects, increase quality, reduce manufacturing time, etc. Lean wants to optimize processes too. The two standards were published contains specific practices or specifications. Are practices not a mandatory? I believe that a practice is a way of working, or a way in which work ‘shall’ be done.

There are no 'standards' for Lean or Six Sigma.........the beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

How a specific activity should be done, is it not a standard? IMHO practices can include activities, processes, functions, standards and guidelines. Correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Hi Jim,

First I’m relatively new to quality and i’m not a Lean or Six Sigma expert. My basic understanding is that Six Sigma wants to deliver lower defects, increase quality, reduce manufacturing time, etc. Lean wants to optimize processes too. The two standards were published contains specific practices or specifications. Are practices not a mandatory? I believe that a practice is a way of working, or a way in which work ‘shall’ be done.

There are no published standards for Lean and Six Sigma in the sense that ISO 9001 (e.g.) is a published standard. ASQ has made attempts at establishing Bodies of Knowledge in those areas in an act of bandwagon-jumping (IMO), but in any case, even ISO 9001 becomes "mandatory" only when two parties agree to it or when an individual company decides to adopt it as a standard.

How a specific activity should be done, is it not a standard? IMHO practices can include activities, processes, functions, standards and guidelines. Correct me if my understanding is wrong.


Your understanding is wrong. :D In order to qualify as a "standard" there would have to be widely-accepted codified methods and requirements for SS and Lean, and there are none. You can set up your own SS or Lean program however you like, and assign black belts to anyone who has a discernible pulse, while another company might have strict requirements for methods and training.

Your understanding is wrong. :D In order to qualify as a "standard" there would have to be widely-accepted codified methods and requirements for SS and Lean, and there are none. You can set up your own SS or Lean program however you like, and assign black belts to anyone who has a discernible pulse, while another company might have strict requirements for methods and training.

Ok thank you i understand now.

Can you considered Lean or Six Sigma as continual improvement? If so, it compliments to a certain area on ISO 9001 clause 8. Going back to the original topic, I would say that it is not replacing ISO standards. It is enhancing processes to achieve optimal results. Otherwise, multiple practices overlap each other.

Ok thank you i understand now.

Can you considered Lean or Six Sigma as continual improvement? If so, it compliments to a certain area on ISO 9001 clause 8. Going back to the original topic, I would say that it is not replacing ISO standards. It is enhancing processes to achieve optimal results. Otherwise, multiple practices overlap each other.

I apologize in advance but it seems that your apprehension of SS/Lean is distorted.

SS/Lean are tools or assemblies of tools. That can be used in full or partial. Exactly the way they were used before the apparition of SS/Lean flavor.
How one is using them or for what end it's up to the person or company in question.

Now...having said all that....can you do the same with ISO?

I apologize in advance but it seems that your apprehension of SS/Lean is distorted.

SS/Lean are tools or assemblies of tools. That can be used in full or partial. Exactly the way they were used before the apparition of SS/Lean flavor.
How one is using them or for what end it's up to the person or company in question.

Now...having said all that....can you do the same with ISO?

I have learned that SS/Lean have been successfully used by multiple organization. We can compare the results to measure progress or improvements. We can benchmark. Benchmarking is a continual improvement tool. ISO 9001 didn’t explicitly say “you do benchmarking” but it says “you do continual improvement”. It applies to other tools such as brainstorming, balanced scorecard, etc. If it is a proven to be effective, you can do SS/Lean the same with ISO.

my thought is open for all criticisms...

I have learned that SS/Lean have been successfully used by multiple organization. We can compare the results to measure progress or improvements. We can benchmark. Benchmarking is a continual improvement tool. ISO 9001 didn’t explicitly say “you do benchmarking” but it says “you do continual improvement”. It applies to other tools such as brainstorming, balanced scorecard, etc. If it is a proven to be effective, you can do SS/Lean the same with ISO.

my thought is open for all criticisms...

You just said it...those are tools not standards...

I have learned that SS/Lean have been successfully used by multiple organization. We can compare the results to measure progress or improvements. We can benchmark. Benchmarking is a continual improvement tool. ISO 9001 didn’t explicitly say “you do benchmarking” but it says “you do continual improvement”. It applies to other tools such as brainstorming, balanced scorecard, etc. If it is a proven to be effective, you can do SS/Lean the same with ISO.

my thought is open for all criticisms...

Something to consider is how many companies can point to ISO and definitively state that ISO is the result of their continued success? In contrast, let's look at Danaher, HON, Toyota, etc. These are companies that built a business system using key "principles" and management methods, not tools. Toyota's method TPS (Toyota Production System) while superficially is referred to as a production system, really is a management system; it just doesn't require an auditor to come in and take a snapshot. It is important to recognize that this isn't the same as the whack-a-mole like approach so common with much of Lean Manufacturing today. Developing a system requires discipline; something many companies have little of in varying degrees of non-existant.

Six Sigma is clearly tools based, and based on tools that have been around a lot longer than their recent pretty packaging.

Wayne

I have been gone a while and jumping back into the fire.

IMHO: A more fruitful discussion would be the use of the methodolgies of lean and SS and how they can be dovetailed into a successful process/quality management system similar to ISO 9000.

A couple of quick examples:

The use of Gemba walks as an auditing tool. If used properly this can be the most powerful tool for a QM. (It packs a lot of punch getting the management on the floor auditing)

LPMS boards as measurement tools of processes. (When you get this to the employee level at each process you will blow the doors off your KPI's)

5Y process for corrective actions driven down to the operators.

Isn't standardized work the same as a work instructions

Having been in companies who both understood and failed to apply lean tools successfully, I would not go back to war (work) without these four processes.

PS: Currently working on a TWI (TRaining Within The Industry) project and will enjoy comments from others using this strategy.

To Steve Prevette's point concerning fads: I would say that management executes TQM, Lean, Six Sigma, etc in a fad like manner, just like a crash diet. TQM, Lean Six Sigma, Deming, ISO and it's derivatives, they all work. It is management's lack of focus and committment that make their execution look like a fad.

as far as Lean being a system: when I was at Honda, we didn't have ISO. we didn't need it. We appproached Lean liek the system that it was intended to be. (OK it was really Honda's version of Toyotat Production System)

Toyota can't be seen as looking at TPS as a fad. true some of their factories have slipped as they expanded but since it is a system, Toyaota has and will no doubt continue to self correct. (they do embody Deming's "consistancy of purpose)

I would love it if TPS replaced ISO, but I doubt that it will in any large scale way. Most management doesn't stomach for maintaing consistancy adn true understanding so they would want auditors at their suppliers and for themselves...and then we're back into the same "problem" we have with ISO...

Ok thank you i understand now.

Can you considered Lean or Six Sigma as continual improvement? If so, it compliments to a certain area on ISO 9001 clause 8. Going back to the original topic, I would say that it is not replacing ISO standards. It is enhancing processes to achieve optimal results. Otherwise, multiple practices overlap each other.Lean and Six Sigma are not continual improvement unless they are used incrementally and repeatedly to bring a process to its maximum efficiency. Continuous Improvement is explained pretty well here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_improvement).

Lean and Six Sigma are not continual improvement unless they are used incrementally and repeatedly to bring a process to its maximum efficiency. Continuous Improvement is explained pretty well here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_improvement).

Continualous improvement should be the product of those things, or at least they should be used to facilitate CI. As far as the Wikipedia article is concerned, this bit sounds like bot language:



The core principle of CIP is the (self) reflection of processes. (Feedback)
The purpose of CIP is the identification, reduction and elimination of suboptimal processes. (Efficiency)
The emphasis of CIP is on incremental, continuous steps, avoiding quantum leaps. (Evolution)

What is "(self) reflection of processes"? The purpose of CIP is the "reduction and elimination of suboptimal processes"?? You're supposed to eliminate processes rather than improve them? Why shouldn't you take a "quantum leap" if it's possible? It seems like the author is suggesting that improvements that happen quickly don't count. It's all very simple:


Review processes
Improve them if it's possible
Go to #1

Replace "processes" with "products" and do that too.

I agree the Wikipedia definition isn't perfect, which is why I said it explained the subject pretty well. And I agree that continuous improvement is the outcome, but as a program or process it can be defined and used to carry out these things toward the outcome.

In a general sense, what makes it different than 6S and Lean is that CI wants continuous measurements for effectiveness, whereas in 6S the project has a definite beginning and end. A Lean project would too.

I don't want to make things more complex than needed, so I'll stop there.

I agree the Wikipedia definition isn't perfect, which is why I said it explained the subject pretty well. And I agree that continuous improvement is the outcome, but as a program or process it can be defined and used to carry out these things toward the outcome.

In a general sense, what makes it different than 6S and Lean is that CI wants continuous measurements for effectiveness, whereas in 6S the project has a definite beginning and end. A Lean project would too.

I don't want to make things more complex than needed, so I'll stop there.

Hi Ms Jennifer,

I always admire your sincere and brilliant ideas. You always point us to the right direction. Thank you so much. We can always count on you to get things better.

Also, thanks to Jim Wayne a.k.a. the father of positive RCA for filing away the rough spots and, of course, to other helpers, who stimulated the discussion. thank you.

No, lean isself is just a tools, not the system. It helps to save cost by eliminating waste but it i nothing about management system. It is good to implement on your company but it will never replace ISO system

No, lean isself is just a tools, not the system. It helps to save cost by eliminating waste but it i nothing about management system. It is good to implement on your company but it will never replace ISO system

Ah but there is the rub! Lean IS a system, not just a collection of tools. hence the name Toyota Production System.

In fact it has much more value to an organization when applied as a system then when applying the 'tools' in an ad hoc or non systemic manner. this is where many companies fail to realize the full benefit of Lean/TPS: it is in their execution.

Ah but there is the rub! Lean IS a system, not just a collection of tools. hence the name Toyota Production System.

I think "collection of tools" is more to the point than saying that Lean is a system, and your example of TPS supports the point. TPS is a way of doing business that includes Lean, but isn't defined by it. Any efficacious business system is comprised of different elements, and will always be greater than the sum of its parts.

nice distinction. Unfortunately, Womack, et al, emasculated the Toyota Production System, resulting a collection of tools, when they wrote their book "The Machine That Changed the World" and created "Lean". Perhaps at the time they felt that Americans weren't capable of "handling the truth". Pity. TPS is a powerful system and is - as you say - much more than the sum of it's elements...

nice distinction. Unfortunately, Womack, et al, emasculated the Toyota Production System, resulting a collection of tools, when they wrote their book "The Machine That Changed the World" and created "Lean". Perhaps at the time they felt that Americans weren't capable of "handling the truth". Pity. TPS is a powerful system and is - as you say - much more than the sum of it's elements...

This is very true. Taiichi Ohno himself had problems with the term "Toyota Production System". He firmly believed that it was a management system, and that it would be prove be such in time; which it did and still continues to do. Further evidence can be seen when one looks at companies such as Danaher, which firmly embrace this practice within their own Danaher Business System.

Wayne

The general Lean agenda seems to receive more attention from top management and in many cases dominate other “quality and change” agendas. The comments and attatiude from management are as though Lean should somehow replace the Quality/ISO process or at least control it under thumb.
Thoughts or similar situations?
:whip:

I'm not surprised by this based on my limited experience with management and ISO systems. Management is typically excited by things they can see and easily measure. Lean definitely allows them to see changes occurring in the workplace. The impact on everything from performance to safety to the bottom line lets them tout the improved numbers and show pretty graphs with lines heading in the right direction. (Note: I'm not saying that this is what Lean is, just how it is seen by management.)

ISO systems are more low key and are made up of a lot of behind the scenes work. The outputs are not flashy and since it deals mostly with quality and to be honest typically quality problems they choose not to focus on it. Also, ISO tends to be a lot of paperwork and meetings because companies set the system to look pretty for customers and auditors. This often means that the system is setup to reflect some dreamy future state as opposed to setup like we really run the business on a day-to-day basis, which of course the system is not used as it should be and everyone rushes around before the audits to update things. Also, most of the executives that I have dealt with did not really understand what ISO was and what it could do for the organization if used effectively.

Harold

I believe that having a Quality Management System is a good foundation point and that's where these tools come in (Six Sigma/Lean).

These will never replace the system but will come handy for problem solving and process improvement of the system.

ISO systems are more low key and are made up of a lot of behind the scenes work. The outputs are not flashy and since it deals mostly with quality and to be honest typically quality problems they choose not to focus on it. Also, ISO tends to be a lot of paperwork and meetings because companies set the system to look pretty for customers and auditors. This often means that the system is setup to reflect some dreamy future state as opposed to setup like we really run the business on a day-to-day basis, which of course the system is not used as it should be and everyone rushes around before the audits to update things.
I'm sorry that this has been your experience - it's a problem with the understanding of what the Standard actually says and requires, and thus poor implementation. As you say:
most of the executives that I have dealt with did not really understand what ISO was and what it could do for the organization if used effectively.
Exactly. If they did, they wouln't tolerate such silly systems of 'paperwork and meetings' for a moment.

A real, dynamic and well implemented quality management system a la 9001 becomes 'what we do everyday to manage and improve our business' - what's boring about increasing customer satisfaction? continuously improving? improving processes and services/products?. Such a system is a different thing altogether, and will happily embrace, work with and make excellent use of such tools as Lean and 6 Sigma, as Harang and others say.

A system is, by its very nature, something that is more than the sum of its parts.