I wholeheartedly agree that common knowledge is not common practice! 

From my experience, I see Lean, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma a bit differently.  I see them as categories of toolsets.  I would categorize “Lean” as “the ruthless elimination of waste”, “Six Sigma” as “the systematic elimination of variation”, and “Lean Six Sigma” as the combination of the two.  As “variation” is a waste, I believe “Six Sigma” is a subset of “Lean”.  Within each category, there are tools to be used when appropriate for the waste needing elimination.  Diving a level deeper, each tool is typically connected or related to at least one (typically many) other tools in the all encompassing toolset.

I believe the “value system” is not any of the categories, but the higher level vision of excellence.  A “value system” of “excellence” would permeate an organization and be evident through all aspects.  It would be evident with some of the concepts you mentioned; continuous learning: to include learning about completion, benchmarking, learning about customers, needs, desires, etc.  as well as Dr. Deming’s “profound knowledge” of the interrelationship within and between the expanse of tools available; Innovation and Improvement would be natural consequences of a “learning organization”.    Root cause would be the norm in such an organization, as it would recognize that improvement is impossible without understanding the cause.  This sounds a bit utopian, but certainly a goal for the enlightened few.

I also agree that the “belt” caste has perpetrated many organizations.  I believe it has originated from consultants marketing their “method” as new, innovative, necessary, etc.  This gets the attention of the short-term minded executives that are looking to make a “splash” in an organization and move up.  The concept gets support, many people receive training in tasks and tools and fail to become educated in the interrelationships and profound knowledge necessary to maximize the potential. 

I see it very similar to a trend in the US manufacturing industry where machinists, tool and die makers, model makers, etc. have been slowly (sometimes quickly) displaced by automated computer controlled machines (CNC) operated by persons not understanding the key concepts of good machining practices.  The machine operators are typically competent to operate the machine (push the “start button”, make offset adjustments, change the modular tooling, etc.).  However, they do not have the knowledge of why the tool chosen is the one for the task or how to trouble shoot if there is an undesirable finish or how to improve a cycle to reduce time or improve tool life or any other improvement necessary. In short, they can operate the process, but are knowledge limited to improve the process they operate.

The proliferation of “belts” I see as a very similar phenomenon.  There are now many “Lean”, “Six Sigma”, and “Lean Six sigma” operators that are competent to use tool sets (i.e. construct Ishikawa diagrams, perform a Design of Experiments, calculate process capability indices, fill-in a failure modes and effects analysis worksheet, draw a process flow diagram, draw a value stream map, etc.).  Few of these operators truly understand the key fundamentals and interrelationships between things like TAKT time and cycle time.  Fewer yet have the profound knowledge to know the correct tool and when and where to apply for improvement.

I would contend that driving the profound knowledge of how the concepts turn into increased capacity, better cash flow, and more flexibility to improve variety for customers all leading to increased sales potentials would be a better path to excellence. 

Just my two cents….